2011-05-26_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

357 Given the amount of discussion still needed at tonight's meeting, Chair Eckman asked that audience 358 members would put any additional questions in written form and submit them to Mr. Petersen for 359 dissemination to the Board, rather than interrupting remaining member discussions. 360 361 Member discussion ensued regarding responsible parties paying for monitoring in the current Plan as 362 written, with Ms. Correll advising that it was currently split between monitoring and data assessment, and 363 implications to the WMO if both those items were merged and under the WMO responsibility, with Mr. 364 Petersen advising that the previously -noted cost projection in 2012 was already at $26,150, but it was the 365 amounts and allocations for the remaining years that needed further delineation. 366 367 At the request of Chair Eckman, Mr. Schwartz advised that, under the new Plan and rule structure, the 368 cities were taking on a lot to meet the WMO requirements; and reiterated his suggestion that the WMO 369 take on all monitoring in the watershed district, and the City's contribution be in the form of BMP's as 370 part of various projects that will be programmed over the Plan's ten (10) year duration and cooperatively 371 with each respective city's capital improvement plan (CIP); but to comply with the proposed rules, as 372 well as taking on additional BMP projects, that may overwhelm the resources of each or both members 373 cities. Mr. Schwartz noted that the timing was awkward with the WMO coming to the member City 374 Councils in June with their proposed funding structure and 2012 budget requests; and was unsure of the 375 reception the WMO would receive based on other budget challenges on each city budget. 376 377 Ms. Correll noted that it would also be more efficient and cost effective to have one organization tasked 378 with monitoring. Ms. Correll reiterated the suggestion of Mr. Schwartz to have one (1) implementation 379 plan that didn't reflect the WMO's current situation, but representing what the WMO would like to 380 realistically accomplish toward its ultimate goals, and put that plan forward for the formal review process. 381 However, Ms. Correll noted that there would need to be clear language in the draft plan and the WMO's 382 intended direction, to allow BWSR to review how realistic such a funding structure would be; with 383 implementation of a funding structure provided ninety (90) days after the final plan is adopted by the 384 WMO 385 386 Action Step Ms. Correll said she will contact Melissa Lewis at BWSR before the next Special Meeting of 387 the GLWMO Board on June 7, 2011, for her guidance on whether to have two (2) implementation plans, 388 or only one (1) and the type of language. 389 390 Mr. Schwartz questioned whether there would be any difference in how the Plan may look if the WMO 391 found a funding structure and remained with their current organizational structure versus merging with 392 the VLAWMO, or if similar resources would be required for either organizational structure, merging or 393 remaining status quo. 394 395 Mr. Petersen noted that the VLAWMO Plan didn't go into the detail of the GLWMO's Third Generation 396 Plan. 397 398 Ms. Correll opined that she saw the biggest problem in merging with another WMO in merging and 399 prioritizing both plans equitably. 400 401 Chair Eckman noted that, under the rules referenced by BWSR, there would be a certain amount of time 402 for them to respond to the Plan, and once finally adopted, it would be a burden to implement on whoever 403 was the recipient or organization. 404 405 Mr. Schwartz questioned if it was a burden, would the Board and member cities be able to come into 406 agreement. 407