Laserfiche WebLink
• Page 21, Section V, Subsection 5.6 (b) (1) - the board is allowed to determine what member city's cost are, <br />not the city council of the member city determines this? <br />I am sure this has been a cooperative process, but ultimately the board decides how much it will <br />contribute to a project, which means that by default the amount the city will need to pay for the <br />project is being set. <br />• Page 21, Section V, Subsection 5.6 (b) (ii) - in the sentence "Member contributions toward a CIP project <br />may appeal the Board's determination by filling a written appeal to the Board within 30 days of the date of <br />the resolution Board's resolution:' Should the work "resolution" in red text be removed? <br />• Page 25, Section V, subsection 5.7 (c) (4) - in the sentence "to due" should be "due to". <br />• Page 28, Section VI, 6.3 (c) (2) - should this be in the JPA since the WMO does not have the authority to <br />tax? <br />Paragraph (c) is about determining caps on a city's contribution, it does not involve the commission <br />levying anything. This is not required to be in the JPA, it has just been used in some WMOs to give <br />the cities some comfort by limiting the amount of increase in the required contribution and placing <br />a cap on the total amount a city may be required to contribute. <br />Page 31, Section Vill, 8.4 - for sentence "Amendments shall be adopted by all governing bodies of the <br />Members:' This language seems to imply that governing bodies of Members "must" adopt amendments. <br />However, staff believe the intent was that amendments must be adopted by governing bodies before <br />changes and amendments to the Agreement may become effective. Which would seem to make more <br />sense. <br />• Page 32, Section VIII, 8.12 - the word "extend" staff believes this word shall be "extent" not <br />"extend". <br />