My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-09-22_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Grass Lake WMO
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-09-22_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2012 11:27:30 AM
Creation date
2/15/2012 11:23:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Grass Lake WMO
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/22/2011
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
605 In response to Chair Eckman, Ms. Correll advised that the new rules include redefining and renaming the <br />606 TMDL Study to WRPP, and other details over the last 6 -9 months setting the stage for this response. Ms. <br />607 Correll sought to assure the GLWMO Board that it was not normal to receive this number and type of <br />608 complaints from an agency. <br />609 <br />610 Ms. Correll reviewed the items identified by FOR as requiring GLWMO Board input following the <br />611 September 6, 2011 meeting with BWSR and the Metropolitan Council; EOR's recommended approach <br />612 for GLWMO Board response to those comments; with discussion among Board members, Mr. Petersen, <br />613 Ms. Correll and Mr. Conrad ensued accordingly. Ms. Correll noted the need to be clear on the <br />614 expectations of the agencies; but advised that she needed a better understanding of those items that were <br />615 "musts," or those serving as "recommended changes" to the Plan. <br />616 <br />617 Mr. Conrad concurred that the Plan needed to comply where there was authority for the agencies to <br />618 enforce; and advised that FOR would provide the GLWMO with those implementation recommendations; <br />619 however, he agreed that there remained further questions that needed to be addressed by FOR with the <br />620 agencies. <br />621 <br />622 Mr. Petersen noted that he had received the DNR response; however, it was noted that the Board had not <br />623 been copied on that document; with Mr. Petersen duly noting that omission. <br />624 The GLWMO 2001 lake classifications versus the current classifications, or historical versus proposed <br />625 classifications. <br />626 <br />627 Funding Level Expectations for a Third Generation WMO Plan <br />628 Ms. Correll noted, as detailed in the September 12, 2011 memorandum, the need to provide for a larger <br />629 budget, in line with Option 2 as outlined in the Draft Plan, to accomplish the types of activities expected <br />630 of a WMO that had been initiated in 1983 and located within an urban area with the number of high <br />631 quality resources of the GLWMO. Ms. Correll noted the need to specify implementation steps for the <br />632 first three (3) years and how they will be funded and who will do the work. <br />633 <br />634 Discussion included the constraints of having a part-time administrator and hiring out all other items; <br />635 when in the past, member cities were responsible for the GLWMO. <br />636 <br />637 Response to some Public Comments Exceed current FOR contract <br />638 <br />639 For the benefit of Lake Owasso Association residents, Ms. Correll advised that some of their comments <br />640 will be addressed as part of the responses to agencies; however, noted that some of those individual <br />641 resident comments would provide background to the Plan but may not be germane to the next draft of the <br />642 Plan. Ms. Correll advised that it would be the GLWMO Board's decision on how to respond to and <br />643 incorporate those comments, given the current budget and additional changes required for FOR to <br />644 address. Ms. Correll noted that, unfortunately, this would require additional costs to the GLWMO Board <br />645 for services from FOR above and beyond their current contract if the Board felt the need to respond to all <br />646 of those comments. Ms. Correll advised that another option for the Board to consider would be for Mr. <br />647 Petersen to address them. At the request of Chair Eckman, Ms. Correll noted that many of the comments <br />648 simply required additional educational responses to provide additional clarification of the Plan; noting <br />649 that such an added level of information would not get fed into the Plan and would be time - consuming for <br />650 EOR. While being supportive of responding to every comment received, Ms. Correll noted that, at some <br />651 point, it was not possible to do it all; and that EOR's intent was to provide a balance. <br />652 <br />653 Ms. Correll, at the Board's request, advised that FOR would highlight those comments from agencies <br />654 versus residents and provide a cost estimate for the GLWMO Board's deliberation on their preferred <br />655 response level, based on current budgetary constraints versus; and to allow FOR to provide the best <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.