2011-05-26_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

52 Edwards Roberts 53 Mr. Roberts questioned the formal approval process of the final DRAFT version of the Plan and when the 54 60 -day comment period for stakeholders (e.g. cities, soil and water districts, counties, BWSR, state 55 agencies, and the public) would commence. 56 57 Discussion on how to proceed with announcing/advertisingland making available for public access 58 the revised DRAFT Third Generation Watershed Management Plan for public and agency review 59 and comment 60 Chair Eckman clarified that this workshop meeting was for discussion only of the preliminary draft plan; 61 and that the public and agencies would have more than sufficient time during the 60 -day comment period 62 and prior to the tentatively - scheduled Public Hearing on August 18, 2011. Chair Eckman noted that, once 63 comments had been received during that 60 -day period and following the Public Hearing in August, FOR 64 and the GLWMO Board would work on responses to comments received, for final submittal to BWSR for 65 their review and approval; at which time, BWSR would return the document to the GLWMO Board with 66 their review and comments, for final adoption of the official document. After that formal adoption, Chair 67 Eckman advised that the member cities then had two (2) years to revise their surface water management 68 plans to coincide with the Third Generation Plan. 69 70 Chair Eckman advised that additional copies of this very preliminary document had not been printed, due 71 to cost considerations and their extensive costs, but would be printed for the more formal review process. 72 73 Chair Eckman asked Ms. Correll with FOR to provide an estimate at the next meeting of the costs of 74 additional copies of the final DRAFT review document; and noted that one would be available at the 75 Roseville and Shoreview branches of the Ramsey County Library, as well as at both City Halls for public 76 review; and online. 77 78 Mr. Petersen concurred, noting that revisions made during tonight's discussion of the preliminary DRAFT 79 would be incorporated into the next revision for further review, with any additional revisions incorporated 80 into the DRAFT Watershed Management Plan for the public, local government and agency review 81 process. 82 83 Chair Eckman noted that the final DRAFT Plan would then be printed after that June 7, 2011 meeting, 84 and that would be the copy that was distributed for public and agency review. 85 86 Discussion among Members and Ms. Correll included how to make the revisions cost - effectively and 87 avoiding unnecessary printing and/or duplication; with Ms. Correll advising that it would be equally time - 88 consuming to insert additional pages rather than just copying the entire document, as revised; and 89 providing several PDT copies and several paper copies for public review when the final DRAFT is 90 created, but would essentially be this same document being reviewed tonight with minor revisions in 91 accordance with Board discussion. 92 93 Review and Discussion of the May 6, 2011 Version DRAFT Third Generation Watershed 94 Management Plan 95 Chair Eckman emphasized that this review was the main issue going forward, and was also critical to how 96 the 2012 budget came out; with the Board needing to determine if they were going to keep the status quo 97 in terms of how much implementation cities did and what responsibility was that of the GLWMO. Chair 98 Eckman questioned if it was time for the GLWMO to take on more implementation issues, recognizing 99 the budget implications per City. 100 101 102 2