2011-05-26_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

154 Newly- appointed Board member Barrett requested a clarification on the cost -share program referenced on 155 the 2012 budget worksheet for property owners (Line 11, Capital Improvements). 156 157 Member Von De Linden noted the number of projects in the Third Generation Plan that cost money. 158 159 To elaborate another point, Ms. Correll addressed the "big picture" as it related to the GLWMO 160 management responsibilities for Lake Owasso, and the need to address the inflow into Lake Owasso from 161 other water bodies whose management falls under the burden of the GLWMO; and how those 162 responsibilities could be addressed by the GLWMO and the City, when they were cost - prohibitive, or 163 outside the GLWMO purview. Ms. Correll suggested that, over the next ten (10) years, what were the 164 BMP's in that Management area that the GLWMO could realistically do, and what the Cities could 165 realistically do, without putting more responsibility on them to come up with rain gardens and address 166 phosphorus loads; activities that would prove too much for either entity given current budget constraints. 167 168 Chair Eckman noted that the southern half of the WMO is part of the watershed for Lake Owasso and that 169 wetland was currently overwhelmed and not doing a good job in getting pollutants out. 170 171 Ms. Correll advised that, when the 2012 -2013 TMDL study has been completed, (second DRAFT of the 172 proposed scope as provided to Board members by e-mail), costs for an in -lake assessment for Lake 173 Owasso could be eliminated as the MPCA thought it not fair to other watershed areas not currently 174 impaired, and the TMDL will state more specifically where BMP projects would be most effective: in- 175 lake or in water body contributors; and then lay out specific activities the GLWMO should address over 176 the remaining seven (7) years of the Third Generation Plan. 177 178 Discussion included projected deliverables of the TMDL study suggesting an implementation plan 179 identifying what types of practices were recommended to address external nutrient loads to Lake Owasso 180 and associated cost estimates; anticipated priorities being Bennett Lake and Lake Emily, and then Lake 181 Owasso, providing general protection for water bodies north of Lake Owasso; upcoming Storm Water 182 Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) review for the City of Shoreview as part of the annual requirements 183 under each city's MS4 Permit from the MPCA; and implications of TMDL study results to provide 184 direction on how best to allocate funds in the DRAFT (6/2001) Implementation Plan Table (Table 33) and 185 how much to ask of members cities, as detailed in the "cost column" in the Third Generation Plan and in 186 Section 7.0 (dated 5/2011), distributed by Ms. Correll at the meeting, and attached hereto and made a 187 part hereof, reiterating that these were all preliminary DRAFT documents at this point, and once further 188 refinements were completed and approved by the Board after the public /agency review period, final 189 approval by BWSR, and subsequent adoption of the Third Generation Plan by the GLWMO Board, minor 190 amendment may still occur once the MPCA's TMFL study was completed. 191 192 Board Members reviewed Table 33 (Implementation Plan Table) and projected goals, priorities, and 193 projected annual cost allocations through the ten (10) years of the Plan; potential revisions to Section 5.0 194 (Management Standards — 6/2011 DRAFT) for responsible parties for management of specific items; 195 comparisons with how other WMO's allocate their BMP costs, rather than WD's; with Action Step Mr. 196 Petersen directed to research that information and e -mail it to Board members for their review. 197 198 On Table 33, page 2, Mr. Schwartz noted references to water quality improvements projects from 2015 — 199 2021 at approximately $6,000 - $7,000 annually, with the proposed city cost share at 50 %; and questioned 200 what types of projects were anticipated. Mr. Schwartz opined that, in general, the numbers indicated on 201 the table seemed small in comparison to actual costs incurred for this type of BMP project. 202 203 204 4