09/06/2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• B. Response to letter of concerns from the St. Paul Regional Water Service. (Dialogue to address individual concerns // Who should be a part? // When? // Dialogue facilitator) The idea of forming a task force to answer the letter was proposed. TW: felt the letter was expected and that it was appropriate and necessary to address all of the concerns raised by the Board of Water Commissioners in their letter. He noted that there does not have to be unanimity on all issues. Could the JPA be reformed without SPRWS? BWSR staff has responded affirmatively. SS: saw the draft Plan as a vision, but needs more substance. PE: expressed concern about the short list of projects, noting that new projects would require Plan amendments. DS: it was noted that projects grow after diagnostic studies show where & how to focus the energy. MS expressed concern over the language signifying the JPA had broken the law. He noted the WBL representative had continued through completing his term. Volunteers are sometimes hard to find, but a new Commissioner has been appointed. TW: expressed concern over continuing the conversation with SPRWS representatives if there was a potential lawsuit pending. SPRWS representatives indicated the AG's office had declined authority at this time. Essential question: Who drafts & approves the annual budget? TW: Municipalities currently fund operations and must set levies. They are accountable to their citizens. He noted that the original '06 budget clearly could not be approved. It was too radical a change. They considered the adjusted budget `half full.' DS (How does the association with SPRWS benefit VLAWMO ?): * monitoring of water quality for the main & Lambert chain of wetlands & lakes; * help getting grant funding (both through `drinking water' leverage and providing substantial in -kind [staff time & cash] matching); * technical assistance for multiple watershed projects or programs. C. Direction for JPA issues The current draft (61406) of the JPA features: 1. Board structure and functioning a. Who? Members of the JPA may appoint whoever they choose so long as the choice is compliant with state law. Several of the membership have expressed a need to have accountability to the taxpayers for operational and capital expenses. The new draft language attempts to balance this need with the organizational need to knowledgeable Board Commissioners guiding the annual budget process. PE: the new language suggests elected officials be on the board or as an alternate Commissioner. MS: noted there were both technical and fiscal responsibilities and both can be accommodated with a variety of structures. Perhaps the Board of elected officials could meet up to 4x yearly, but delegate some of its authority to a monthly operation committee (Technical Advisory Committee ?). A budget sent to the communities must only be passed by a majority. The delegates would need to "sell" or explain & support the budget to the Councils. Get the Council liaisons involved early so Councils are not surprised.