2011-06-07_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

352 Chair Eckman opined that this Agreement not be considered, since it didn't make sense to have a contract 353 in place that didn't offer some flexibility. 354 355 Mr. Petersen noted that Snail Lake was in a four (4) -year rotation cycle, and that Ramsey County was 356 doing that survey as part of their on -going Lake surveys. 357 358 Action Step After further discussion, it was Board consensus to eliminate Lake Owasso from the 359 proposed Ramsey County agreement; and if it was possible to perform a survey in August on Lake 360 Owasso, that FOR be used unless there was a conflict with the homeowner's association spraying. 361 Further consensus included modifying the agreement for a June and August survey(s) of Wabasso Lake, 362 with either survey contingent upon respective homeowner association spraying contracts. 363 364 Motion SP 11 -06 - 05 365 Member Miller moved, and Member Barrett seconded approval to authorize Chair Eckman to execute the 366 agreement between Ramsey County Public Works and the GLWMO Board for 2011 aquatic vegetation 367 surveys, amended as follows: 368 • Striking any references or surveys to Lake Owasso; and 369 • The Lake Wabasso survey(s) contingent upon no conflict with homeowner association spraying. 370 371 Chair Eckman again recognized Mr. Roberts for public comment; and Mr. Roberts advised that it was the 372 general approach of the Lake Owasso Association to target the last week of May or the first week of June 373 for treatments, noting that the schedule was weather- dependent; and before spraying the Lake was usually 374 inspected with a DNR inspector several times before a decision was made based on climactic conditions 375 and rate of weed growth. 376 377 Ayes:3 Nays:0 378 Motion carried. 379 380 Motion SP 11 -06 - 06 381 Member Miller moved, and Member Barrett seconded approval to authorize Chair Eckman to sign "P8 382 Model Waiver from Barr Engineering." 383 384 Ayes:3 Nays:0 385 Motion carried. 386 387 Discussion and Motion on how to proceed with announcingladvertising/and making available for 388 public access the DRAFT Watershed Management Plan for public and agency review and comment 389 Chair Eckman noted previous discussion related to this item held during the DRAFT Plan review and 390 subsequent motion. 391 392 Mr. Petersen provided updated figures from his research of a firm for mailing to 21,000 addresses of a 393 post card, with the best -case scenario estimated at approximately $1,149, but dependent on the mailing 394 status for the post card that would range from $1,700 to $3,100. Mr. Petersen estimated that the Board 395 should plan for a minimum cost of $2,900 for a plain postcard mailed to the resident at each address as 396 "postal patron," not specifically addressed, and based on a map and delivery routes. Mr. Petersen noted 397 that this would cover those in the WMO, as well as some outside it based on the delivery routes; but to 398 split those delivery routes would create additional costs. Mr. Petersen opined that this seemed to be an 399 excessive cost; and advised that this firm had been recommended to him by the Sierra Club, and did this 400 type of mailing frequently, so he was quite confident in their projected costs. 401