2011-05-19_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

203 Chair Pro -tem Eckman noted her conversations to -date with Ms. Stephanie McNamara from the (Vadnais 204 Lakes Area Water Management Organization) VLAWMO on their 1.5 year timeframe for making 205 recommendations to their six (6) representative cities; and she reiterated the need to find other options 206 beyond the current non - sustainable status- quo funding to implement the Third Generation Watershed 207 Management Plan currently being developed. 208 209 Chair Pro -tem Eckman recognized audience member Richard Fowler for comment, who opined that the 210 merging philosophy throughout the State of MN was how important citizen committees were in the future 211 of water management. 212 213 Chair Pro -tem Eckman concurred, noting that it was not the Board's intention to abdicate their 214 responsibility, but to obtain as much information as possible in the shortest time frame. 215 216 Discussion among Board members included drawbacks in delaying the establishment of a task force until 217 after the Third Generation Plan approval process; actual date of the Third Generation Ten -Year Plan 218 being from 2012 to 2021, and delays already built into the plan and process; consensus of the Board 219 strongly supporting creation of a task force and recognizing the time needed to advertise and enlist 220 citizens; and the incentive in recruiting citizens by having a target end date for serving on the task force. 221 222 Mr. Petersen recognized the needs of the representative cities in developing their preliminary budgets by 223 June of 2012; opining that the Board needed to be respectful of their timeframes in conjunction with 224 determining the best and most viable financing mechanism to achieve the goals and objectives of the 225 Plan. 226 227 Chair Pro -tem Eckman recognized audience member Len Ferrington for comment, who spoke in support 228 of citizen involvement in the process, concurring with comments of audience member Richard Fowler; 229 and reviewed the proposed time table for completion of the plan and its adoption, adhering to the statutory 230 requirements of the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) for their review and approval of the 231 plan, followed by the Board's adoption of the final approved plan. Mr. Ferrington noted the advantages 232 of citizens charged with gather sentiments and opinions of various neighborhoods and presenting 233 implications of various options to them through dissemination of that information. 234 235 Chair Pro -tem Eckman expressed her anticipation that the process would continue to move as quickly as 236 possible to keep on the Board - approved, aggressive schedule. 237 238 Mr. Ferrington reviewed the process and timeframe from his perspective based on 3 -5 months for BWSR 239 review and approval, their acceptance of the Plan as presented or their request for modifications; and how 240 a financial model would work into BWSR's approval and timing of task force recommendations. 241 242 Chair Pro -tem Eckman advised that it was not the Board's intent to make a recommendation to the 243 representative cities prior to Plan approval by BWSR; however, she opined that there was no need to 244 delay continuing the Board's due diligence in comparing financing options with other water management 245 organizations. 246 247 Further discussion among Board members included time required in achieving Board consensus for task 248 force recommendations and the ultimate collective recommendation to two (2) different City Councils; 249 how best to recruit people to provide a balance throughout the watershed; and proposed application and 250 interview processes by the Board or through recommendation by the respective City Councils. 251 252 253