2011-05-26_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 Ms. Eckman reviewed member city funding to -date, by year and applicable to each City: 2009 Budget Year $18,500 2010 Budget Year 25,000 2011 Budget Year 37,000 2012 Budget Year 40,000 (Estimated) Even with the proposed 2012 budget request, Mr. Petersen opined that if the 2012 implementation steps were done as indicated in the Plan, it was not a sustainable or possible budget for the GLWMO. Ms. Correll referenced Section 5 (Table 24) of the Management Standards, noting differentiation of those water bodies managed by the GLWMO alone in the 2001 Plan, those co- managed by the GLWMO and member communities, and the resources predominately managed by the cities. Ms. Correll noted that the GLWMO managed Lake Owasso, Wabasso Lake and Snail Lake, and noted those others in Table 24 that were co- managed or city - managed. Ms. Correll questioned if the GLWMO should or could assume more management of water bodies. Mr. Schwartz questioned if "cooperatively- managed" lakes was meant to indicate management from a financial perspective, and if so, most were city - managed in the past. Ms. Correll responded negatively, noting that cooperative - managed water bodies would mean that management responsibility would fall to the cities as current practice, but cooperatively- managed water bodies would remain monitored by the applicable city, with more stipulations on what the GLWMO Board wanted those monitoring steps to be. At the request of Chair Eckman, as to a sense of Roseville monitoring, Mr. Schwartz advised that would present no problem for Roseville or Shoreview as monitoring rotated on specific water bodies every other year. Ms. Correll advised that the rationale for moving from cooperatively- managed to GLWMO- managed was mostly due to impaired waters, and allowing the cities to address TMDL studies /requirements. Chair Eckman noted that current BMP's constructed in watersheds' were if a surface water management plan was in place or road reconstruction was planned, it was common practice by the respective cities, within a watershed, to proceed with improvements, with the specific watershed adding money to go beyond minimal requirements for water quality. Chair Eckman used, as an example, Turtle Lake in Shoreview where citizens lobbied for repair and the challenges found in infiltrating that runoff, when it came up on the Shoreview schedule to repair that area, the Rice Creek Watershed District funded $50,000 for the extra steps beyond just trapping sediments, in order to collect the runoff. However, Chair Eckman noted that the GLWMO didn't have sufficient funds to do that, and had to be content with whatever the respective city could do to meet requirements. Chair Eckman asked that Board Members factor that into their consideration in responding to the question should the GLWMO Board take on more responsibility. Chair Eckman advised, when reviewing the past and current budgets, the money spent on anything except studies and surveys, with little spent on actually putting things in the ground. Discussion among Board members, Ms. Correll, and Mr. Schwartz included various projects to -date (e.g. Legion Ponds at County Road C and Victoria Street in Roseville; funding to the new outlet into Ditch 16 which was a multi- agency project); and until last year, less than $1,000 spent on BMP cost -share initiatives by residents.