2011-10-20_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

One such education/outreach option suggested by Chair Eckman, modeled by other WSD's, included maintenance workshops where recipients of BMP funds would be required to attend a 1 -2 hour maintenance workshop as part of the process to receive those funds to learn how to manage their installations; with those workshops meant as a benefit for homeowners, not as a punishment. Mr. Petersen sought GLWMO Board feedback on this initial draft if viable for redrafting for final comment for Ms. Correll to be included in the next draft of the Third Generation Plan. Further discussion included rationale for expanding the BMP program to cities, counties and state properties and/or projects for those projects on public shorelines or beaches to provide management assistance to those entities; and whether public projects should be excluded, or whether two (2) separate programs should be considered: one for private and one for public properties. Member Miller opined that by introducing RCD into something between the GLWMO and city or the GLWMO and county could be duplicating projects that were already being done as a cost -share program or impacting the distribution of labor. After further discussion, Member Miller advised that as long as he understood that this BMP cost -share incentive program was independent of the existing service contract with the RCD, it cleared up his concerns, and he could support keeping the public and private portions combined. In the context of the RCD, Mr. Petersen opined that they served as a technical vehicle for site design; however, it could be another body that could provide the mechanics and payment for design work upfront that would ensure appropriate technical standards. Chair Eckman noted that other WSD's would not pay for something that was a requirement for conservation; and only pay for enhancements, such as the Turtle Lake project done by the RCWD. Mr. Maloney clarified that the Turtle Lake project was through a matching grant; and that the City of Shoreview participated in that program almost on an annual basis, that included maintenance, remodeling, discharge removal, etc. Additional discussion included directing Mr. Petersen to include a maximum cost -share amount in the next draft for both commercial and residential projects; and having information included to support his recommended budget. Mr. Maloney advised that he had been trying to identify any city projects that he would seek GLWMO cost -share monies, and after not being able to identify any, he opined that GLWMO monies would be better placed for projects on private property. Mr. Maloney further opined that this would provide more opportunities to achieve goals, since the GLWMO's minimal ability to participate in larger public projects would be less frequent or applicable. Also, if the GLWMO governance remains as a separate WMO under a JPA with member cites, Mr. Maloney advised that he would actually be watching those funds come full circle from the member city to the GLWMO and then back to the member city. From the City of Roseville's perspective, Mr. Schwartz concurred with the comments of Mr. Maloney. Additional discussion included whether school districts or churches would be an example of a public entity that the GLWMO could provide cost -share incentives to; with Board consensus being to direct Mr. Petersen to include residential property owners, schools and churches in the program document; however, to delete public properties; and to reduce the program budget proportionately. 10