Laserfiche WebLink
509 Mr. Maloney clarified, for the GLWMO Board's edification, that the projects the City of Shoreview had <br />510 partnered with the RCWD had been projects that were planned anyway since implementation by the City <br />511 of a Direct Discharge Removal Plan in the 1990's. <br />512 <br />513 Mr. Petersen advised that he would revise the document based on tonight's directives and discussion; and <br />514 provide a revised draft to the GLWMO Board before sending it off to Ms. Correll for including in the <br />515 Plan. <br />516 <br />517 Implementation of Technical Programs, Studies, and /or Projects 2012 thru 2014 <br />518 As previously noted, Mr. Mr. Petersen provided a bench handout entitled, "Draft Implementation of <br />519 Technical Programs, Studies, and/or Projects 2012 thru 2014; "providing additional detail for specific <br />520 projects and their proposed implementation timeframe. Mr. Petersen summarized the document for <br />521 discussion purposes. <br />522 <br />523 Discussion included annual review of Municipal and County MS4 SWPPP's. <br />524 <br />525 Mr. Schwartz questioned the intent of a GLWMO review; and Mr. Maloney echoed that question, noting <br />526 that the member cities were accountable to the MPCA as part of their required NPDES program. <br />527 <br />528 Mr. Petersen reviewed the intent in reviewing member city plans on an annual basis to verify that they <br />529 were running parallel to the GLWMO Plan. <br />530 <br />531 Mr. Maloney opined that his reaction was that the project implied that member cities had another agency <br />532 that they were accountable to. <br />533 <br />534 Mr. Petersen suggested renaming the title to "Annual Performance Review and Report," and drop any <br />535 reference to the MS4's, noting that member cites did an annual report for the SWPPP that should parallel <br />536 the GLWMO Plan. <br />537 <br />538 Mr. Schwartz opined that this sounded like an internal GLWMO Board activity, and not up to the <br />539 consideration of member cities. <br />540 <br />541 Chair Eckman clarified that the intent was not for the GLWMO to approve or disapprove of them, but to <br />542 include any GLWMO education/outreach opportunities for member cities to receive credit for in their <br />543 annual reports. <br />544 <br />545 Mr. Maloney concurred with this intent, noting that member cities were always looking to leverage those <br />546 opportunities on the city's behalf; and advised that member cities were very supportive of those <br />547 education /outreach opportunities, but that they were not looking for another review agency. <br />548 <br />549 Mr. Schwartz advised that both member cities provided their SWPP on their websites as public <br />550 information, and questioned the need for $2,500 in the budget for that review. <br />551 <br />552 Chair Eckman suggested that, going forward, member cities review what had been included in the annual <br />553 reports, and other areas to make the public aware of and to enhance their report. <br />554 <br />555 After further discussion, Ms. Correll suggested that new text be added to the next draft of the Plan related <br />556 to annual SWPPP coordination with member communities to ensure an annual evaluation and <br />557 accountability consistent with language of the implementation plan. <br />558 <br />11 <br />