2011-05-26_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

205 Ms. Correll advised that, based on results of the TMDL study, improvements to water quality could 206 include barley straw application; storm water management BMP's to promote volume control; and 207 clarified that the costs in this first DRAFT of Table 33 were more reflective of current GLWMO financial 208 activities and funding mechanisms. 209 210 Mr. Schwartz opined that the figures reflecting the amount of phosphorus loading to be mitigated could 211 be significantly different than those projected, based on the results of the TMDL study. 212 213 Ms. Correll concurred that those costs reflected at this time and on this draft were projected relatively 214 low, as she had heard repeatedly from individual board members; but that the most important 215 consideration was what it took to fund a project and how to fund it. As part of the global picture and 216 decision - making. 217 218 Chair Eckman advised that, realistically, the GLWMO Board would need to make an annual budget, and 219 instead of the proposed $100,000, revise it to an annual $200,000 by 2012, essentially doubling the 220 current budget as a more pro- active approach for the first year in the ten (10) year timeframe. 221 222 Further discussion included anticipated timeframe for results of the TMDL Implementation Plan, 223 estimated by Ms. Correll to be approximately 2 -3 years, with monitoring data collected in 2012 (not 224 budgeted in 2011) and by 2014, results could indicate where best to allocate resources; and philosophical 225 rationale in treating sub - watershed pollution points before treating the main water body. 226 227 Additional discussion included adequacy of projected funding for the GLWMO's funding responsibility 228 of the TMDL study annually and in total; those items reflecting 50% cost -share for cities that were not 229 previously included in the 2012 budget requests for member cities based on proposed changes in 230 management structure; with the annual monitoring report and related budget items combined at $26,150 231 for 2012; references to page 128 of the Plan (3`a column from right) for aquatic vegetation (macrophyte) 232 sampling and frequency of rotation with no costs included for the 2012 budget, with Action Step Ms. 233 Correll directed to confirm that with FOR staff (Andrea); and sampling being conducted and its frequency 234 for Wabasso Lake, Snail Lake, and Lake Owasso for 2011. 235 236 Board members further discussed the various roles and responsibilities for member cities and the 237 GLWMO in implementation activities (in ground); sources of funding, such as increasing member city 238 water /sewer rates, obtaining grants if and when available, and other supplementation sources of income 239 that may be available in the future and within the timing of the ten (10) year Plan; and the need for the 240 goals to be implemented as defined in the Plan, with funding options being another issue. 241 242 Ms. Correll opined that, if the Board was firm on their desire to be proactive, realistic funding sources 243 needed to be identified for implementation, not just idealistic initiatives and goals. 244 245 Further discussion included many implementation initiatives not coming into the picture until 2014, 246 allowing for some advance research of funding options, and following completion of the TMDL study; 247 identification with the FAA, i.e., Barr Study, on some initiatives between now and 2014, primarily Curly 248 Leaf, noting that some data was based on several drought years that may skew the data and recommended 249 mitigation efforts; and members recognizing that actual costs for the three potential funding mechanisms 250 remained only as assumptions, due to the pending decision on the GLWMO's governance and funding 251 following further due diligence and discussion of those options, while taking into consideration current 252 realities and resources versus actual strategies to accomplish goals and implement initiatives, and how to 253 reflect that reality to the public and agencies for their formal review and to promote a clear understanding 254 of the issues facing the GLWMO in the future and defining a realistic approach to accomplishing those 255 goals for the good of the WMO and its constituents.