2011-09-22_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1264 Discussion included funds already being expended with Ramsey County for vegetation surveys, and with 1265 the RCD for BMP requests; and cost efficiencies in doing things piecemeal or by retainer depending on 1266 the project. 1267 1268 Ms. Correll suggested, for the GLWMO, it would be prudent to have someone on retainer to provide 1269 consistency to the Board, to attend Board meetings, and to provide technical advice for the Board's 1270 decision - making, participate in Board and/or constituent field trips as projects arise; and opined that a 1271 project by project consultant would not be the best route for the Board to pursue. 1272 1273 With the observation of Member Miller that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) would also 1274 provide some of that expertise more cost - effectively, Mr. Conrad opined that the TAC would not provide 1275 the reliable day -to -day assistance needed by the Board, since they all had their own responsibilities and 1276 positions to consider. 1277 1278 Ms. Correll concurred, opining that a TAC was usually called in for a specific project; and their charge 1279 should be review specific plans, hold monthly meetings and set their own agendas, serving only in an 1280 advisory capacity versus staff. 1281 1282 Member Miller opined that he would be concerned with having a staff person from a private company 1283 without assurances that there were no potential conflicts of interest. 1284 1285 Mr. Conrad advised that the recommendations detailed in the FOR memorandum were intended for the 1286 GLWMO to meet BWSR concerns; noting that they may ask that the Board take the next step. 1287 1288 Mr. Petersen questioned if this was intended to be an engineering firm or an individual; with Member 1289 Miller advising that it was his intent that it be an individual who would directly report to the GLWMO 1290 Board, not to a firm that could have separate or conflicting interests. 1291 1292 Public Comment 1293 Edward Roberts 1294 in response to Member Miller's comment, Mr. Roberts opined that a TAC would ebb and flow; and 1295 questioned if that wouldn't serve to guide future commissioners. 1296 1297 Ms. Correll reiterated that it was BWSR's intent to see a commitment from the GLWMO, and since a 1298 TAC served in a specific role, the WMO couldn't and shouldn't rely on a TAC to provide technical 1299 support, or something that should be implemented as part of the Plan. Ms. Correll further noted that a 1300 TAC was to provide feedback to the WMO as members of the community. 1301 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried 1302 1303 Goal: Criteria for How /When Co- Existence of Water Quality and Recreation has been met 1304 Discussion included BWSR's recommendation based on original intent; whether to revise the Plan to 1305 make the GLWMO's intent more clear or strike it. 1306 1307 Mr. Conrad suggested that this be outlined in the cover letter with the Plan, rather than incorporated into 1308 the Plan itself, as a standard operating procedure for the WMO. 1309 1310 Motion 11 -09 -16 1311 Member Von De Linde moved, and Member Barrett seconded, striking the criteria provision as a goal in 1312 the Plan, as detailed in the FOR memorandum (page 5); amended to include that criteria provision as a 1313 sub - bullet in the "Mission" statement of the Third Generation Plan. 1314 26