2011-09-22_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

651 Hale Avenue North Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 telephone: 661.770.8448 facsimile: 651.770.2552 www.eorinc.com Date September 12, 2011 To GLWMO Board of Commissioners cc Tom Petersen, GLWMO Administrator From Camilla Correll Regarding I Summary of Meeting with the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and the Metropolitan Council Background FOR met with Melissa Lewis, BWSR, Judy Sventek, Metropolitan Council and Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council to review and discuss comments received from both agencies: Metropolitan Council comments received August 26, 2011 and BWSR comments received September 6, 2011. This discussion provided clarity on the comments received as well as over- riding issues the agencies have with the GLWMO's previous accomplishments, funding required to accomplish what it needs to accomplish over the next ten years and lack of decision - making with respect to future governance structure. At this point FOR has a good understanding of the modifications that need to be made to the Plan to meet the comments submitted by the BWSR and the Metropolitan Council. However, some of these changes can't be made until the Board of Commissioners makes decisions about future management of the GLWMO. This memorandum summarizes the decisions the GLWMO Board of Commissioners needs to make before FOR can formally respond to all of the comments received to date. It is proposed that these decisions be discussed by the Board at the September 22, 2011 Board Meeting so that FOR can move forward with the next steps in the Plan review process. Management Issues for GLWMO Board Discussion The following items were identified as requiring GLWMO Board input at the September 6, 2011 meeting with the BWSR and the Metropolitan Council: 1. WMO Funding Level —According to BWSR and the Metropolitan Council the Option 1 Budget will be unacceptable for a 10 -year watershed management plan. Both agencies agree that the GLWMO needs a bigger budget (something in line with Option 2) to accomplish the types of activities (and the level of activities) commensurate with a watershed management organization that has been around since 1983 as well as one that is located in an urban area with the number of high quality resources that the GLWMO has. If the member communities cannot commit to funding at the Option 2 level for the entire 10 years, the group suggested that the Board consider developing a Plan that identifies a limited number of higher priority items the organization intends to accomplish in the next 3 years (e.g. TMDL Plan which will address outstanding questions in the UAA) and articulate that the Organization intends to conduct a major plan amendment in year 4 to add the structural /capital improvement projects that were identified in the TMDL Plan and to finalize its financing structure. This CIP- related plan amendment would be a cost - effective way of getting the 2011 GLWMO Watershed Management Plan approved and would eliminate the need to re- create work that has already been conducted as part of the 2011 planning process. Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. water I ecology I community