My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-05-26_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Grass Lake WMO
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-05-26_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2012 10:39:21 AM
Creation date
2/15/2012 10:37:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Grass Lake WMO
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/26/2011
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
52 Edwards Roberts <br />53 Mr. Roberts questioned the formal approval process of the final DRAFT version of the Plan and when the <br />54 60 -day comment period for stakeholders (e.g. cities, soil and water districts, counties, BWSR, state <br />55 agencies, and the public) would commence. <br />56 <br />57 Discussion on how to proceed with announcing/advertisingland making available for public access <br />58 the revised DRAFT Third Generation Watershed Management Plan for public and agency review <br />59 and comment <br />60 Chair Eckman clarified that this workshop meeting was for discussion only of the preliminary draft plan; <br />61 and that the public and agencies would have more than sufficient time during the 60 -day comment period <br />62 and prior to the tentatively - scheduled Public Hearing on August 18, 2011. Chair Eckman noted that, once <br />63 comments had been received during that 60 -day period and following the Public Hearing in August, FOR <br />64 and the GLWMO Board would work on responses to comments received, for final submittal to BWSR for <br />65 their review and approval; at which time, BWSR would return the document to the GLWMO Board with <br />66 their review and comments, for final adoption of the official document. After that formal adoption, Chair <br />67 Eckman advised that the member cities then had two (2) years to revise their surface water management <br />68 plans to coincide with the Third Generation Plan. <br />69 <br />70 Chair Eckman advised that additional copies of this very preliminary document had not been printed, due <br />71 to cost considerations and their extensive costs, but would be printed for the more formal review process. <br />72 <br />73 Chair Eckman asked Ms. Correll with FOR to provide an estimate at the next meeting of the costs of <br />74 additional copies of the final DRAFT review document; and noted that one would be available at the <br />75 Roseville and Shoreview branches of the Ramsey County Library, as well as at both City Halls for public <br />76 review; and online. <br />77 <br />78 Mr. Petersen concurred, noting that revisions made during tonight's discussion of the preliminary DRAFT <br />79 would be incorporated into the next revision for further review, with any additional revisions incorporated <br />80 into the DRAFT Watershed Management Plan for the public, local government and agency review <br />81 process. <br />82 <br />83 Chair Eckman noted that the final DRAFT Plan would then be printed after that June 7, 2011 meeting, <br />84 and that would be the copy that was distributed for public and agency review. <br />85 <br />86 Discussion among Members and Ms. Correll included how to make the revisions cost - effectively and <br />87 avoiding unnecessary printing and/or duplication; with Ms. Correll advising that it would be equally time - <br />88 consuming to insert additional pages rather than just copying the entire document, as revised; and <br />89 providing several PDT copies and several paper copies for public review when the final DRAFT is <br />90 created, but would essentially be this same document being reviewed tonight with minor revisions in <br />91 accordance with Board discussion. <br />92 <br />93 Review and Discussion of the May 6, 2011 Version DRAFT Third Generation Watershed <br />94 Management Plan <br />95 Chair Eckman emphasized that this review was the main issue going forward, and was also critical to how <br />96 the 2012 budget came out; with the Board needing to determine if they were going to keep the status quo <br />97 in terms of how much implementation cities did and what responsibility was that of the GLWMO. Chair <br />98 Eckman questioned if it was time for the GLWMO to take on more implementation issues, recognizing <br />99 the budget implications per City. <br />100 <br />101 <br />102 <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.