2011-05-26_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

256 257 Additional discussion included possibly showing two (2) Implementation Plans: the current funding and 258 organizational structure, and a potential option, if and when determined by the GLWMO Board in 2012, 259 for a different form of governance and/or finance structure and how the Implementation Plan may look 260 under that vision. 261 262 Discussion ensued on the intent of the WMO in their jurisdiction ideally, and recognizing that as things 263 continued to deteriorate, costs escalated to correct or eliminate the problems; whether it was appropriate 264 to determine the goals, then how to fund them; timeframe of the TMDL study on how to identify the 265 pounds of loading from each sub - watershed and demonstration of how quickly the loading can be 266 reduced, still dependent on available resources of the GLWMO and member cities and their individual 267 and corporate responsibilities in partnership with the WMO. 268 269 From a city perspective, Mr. Schwartz advised that the expectations for the cities coming from this 270 discussion are greater than those being requested by other watershed districts, noting that other 271 watersheds were not at the point of a TMDL study. Mr. Schwartz advised that this would be a concern 272 for cities since those watersheds had identified areas, some things they've done or are doing, but not 273 having gotten to the full TMDL study stage yet. Mr. Schwartz noted that the City of Roseville dealt with 274 regulations of Rice Creek Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, as well as the 275 GLWMO, and those items discussed is a bigger concern for both Shoreview and Roseville than those of 276 the other two (2) watersheds. 277 278 Ms. Correll clarified that Bennett Lake and Lake Emily were the main issues representing a section of the 279 watershed and a specific goal, requiring a target goal, current status, and how to reasonably meet that 280 target in a very developed watershed. 281 282 Chair Eckman asked Mr. Schwartz if the GLWMO was ahead of the other two watershed districts 283 because of the GLWMO's involvement in the TMDL study. 284 285 Mr. Schwartz advised that the other watersheds had impaired waters, but they do not have TMDL studies 286 developed, and as opportunities arose during the permitting processes, such as road projects or 287 redevelopment efforts, mitigation and projects were accomplished as part of those projects. Mr. Schwartz 288 noted that rules were in place for both watershed districts and the WMO to address any new development 289 or redevelopments, at which time mitigation efforts were reviewed for storm water getting into various 290 resources, and BMP's such as buffers, rain gardens, storm sewer retrofits, outlet modifications on storm 291 water outlets are all considered as part of the project. By the WMO proscribing a specific dollar amount 292 for member cities, if the GLWMO Budget was approved at a 50% cost - share, he anticipated that the cities 293 will come to the table with the same dollar amounts as currently approved. 294 295 Ms. Correll noted that, since the cities were MS4 permitted, they would be required to meet a portion of 296 that goal; and advised that the MPCA liked to see when an implementation plan was completed, and cities 297 estimating what reduction could be achieved to reach a prescriptive target goal. 298 299 Chair Eckman noted that the WMO's intent was not to dictate a date specific for accomplishment, but to 300 provide some flexibility. 301 302 Chair Eckman recognized audience member Edward Roberts for public comment, with Mr. Roberts 303 questioning the main concerns of Mr. Schwartz from a city perspective with the WMO rather than the 304 other two watershed districts. 305 6