2011-05-19_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

505 Further Board member discussion with Mr. Petersen and Ms. Correll of FOR included city use of their 506 storm water utility fees as a resource for the annual GLWMO budget; Mr. Schwartz advising that BWSR 507 grant funding typically could be considered CIP dollars if a grant was received and a capital match 508 approved; TMDL monitoring and survey data for use in CIP projects; rule- making potential of the 509 GLWMO Board in 2012 or a consideration for 2013; 510 511 current development by the City of Roseville of its own master wetland plan; identification of and 512 needed focus on external sources of phosphorus to Lake Owasso from the south from Bennett Lake, based 513 on the BARR Use Attainability Study, and not meeting proposed standards, as well as water quality 514 problems with Willow Lake. 515 516 Ms. Correll clarified that Willow was designated as a wetland, and Bennett as a shallow lake in the Draft 517 Plan; and she differentiated between wetland management and the TMDL study as two separate issues 518 needing consistent and trained personnel to monitor data, not just trained volunteers. Ms. Correll advised 519 that a wetland management plan would assess current conditions to determine how to apply wetland 520 management standards, but that there would be no assessment of resources to change and ultimately 521 improve them. 522 523 Additional discussion included the status of Lake Judy and Emily and the need to clean those external 524 sources going into Lake Owasso; increased education/outreach for 2012 proposed at $10,000 as per the 525 Plan; lack of consistent past efforts for education and outreach regarding land management 526 activities/stormwater management that have served to create current water quality conditions; 2012 527 Budget ideals versus realities; and more realistic 2011 budget figures available as the year progresses and 528 providing closer actual fund balances available in 2012. 529 530 Further discussion included mandatory components of the Plan necessary to include in the 2012 Budget; 531 whether to present representative cities with one or two budgetary scenarios; attendance by GLWMO 532 Board members at area lakeshore meetings and associations as part of a more effective 533 education/outreach effort seeking their assistance and partnership with the GLWMO Board in educating 534 citizens and thereby hopefully reducing those costs somewhat for the Board; and the need to recognize 535 that continuing to use fund balances to fund the annual budget was not a sustainable or practical financial 536 practice. 537 538 Chair Pro -tem Eckman recognized audience member Roberts for additional comment, with Mr. Roberts 539 referenced the BARR Engineering study for Owasso Lake and subsequent public meeting alerting the 540 public of the shocking results of the heavy nutrient loading of the Lake from the south end of the 541 watershed into Lake Owasso and assuming that wetlands improved water quality. Mr. Roberts opined 542 that this information caused a lot of people on the Lake Owasso Association to question what the 543 GLWMO Board was doing about the situation; and there was no available response. Mr. Roberts noted 544 that it was supposed to be the objective of the GLWMO to protect and preserve water bodies in its 545 jurisdiction; and questioned how that objective fit into the proposed budget, and how there could be 546 assurances that the objectives remained a priority. 547 548 In response, Member Miller advised that there were BMP's already developed, and others in development 549 stages (e.g. rain gardens and lakeshore restoration) based on past TMDL studies allowing the GLWMO to 550 pinpoint where mitigations would be most effective and where to most effectively use its limited funds; 551 and confirmed that there was no proposed cut in monitoring or TMDL study dollars, with the GLWMO 552 recognizing their importance and contribution to overall water management within its jurisdiction. 553 554 555 11