2011-10-20_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

559 Mr. Maloney opined that this sounded like a good theme; and clarified that the former "report cards" 560 familiar to and committed to by the GLWMO Board in the past was prior to the NDPES requirements of 561 cities; with MS4's providing sufficient document for the GLWMO and the public to understand the 562 actions, and the replacement of the report cards by the MS4 annual reports. 563 564 It was GLWMO Board consensus and the understanding of both representatives of member cities that the 565 GLWMO Board was not intending this item to be regulatory in nature at all, and simply for synergy 566 purpose. 567 568 Further discussion included changing wording in the implementation section of the Plan to "facilitating 569 standard adoption;" and reducing that budget from $19,000 to $7,500 at the recommendation of Ms. 570 Correll; review by Ms. Correll and Mr. Petersen of the revised work plan and budget amount for the 571 TMDL /WRAPP study; and increasing the retrofit analysis portion to $15,000. 572 573 Member Von De Linde expressed her concern that the Board was attempting to accomplish too much in 574 2012, and rather than succeeding would be setting themselves up for failure; with Chair Eckman 575 concurring that some of those 2012 implementation projections needed to be deferred. 576 577 With Board concurrence, Ms. Correll advised that an additional item to be added to the list for 2014 578 would be the "Major Plan Amendment." 579 580 Further discussion included increasing the budget to $100,000 for BMP's in headwater neighborhoods for 581 consultations, design and actual installation; awaiting results of the TMDL /WRAPP to determine what 582 the GLWMO could realistically afford; analyzing implementation projects to ensure the Board is ready 583 for the next step once the study is fmalized; defining retrofit as analysis; determining available funds and 584 those projects reliant on obtaining grant funds. 585 586 Ms. Correll advised that the "storm water retrofit analysis for Lake Owasso headwaters" made her 587 nervous, since this would be evaluated as part of the WRAPP and that study would provide the most cost - 588 effective options to get it projects installed. 589 590 Chair Eckman noted that the GLWMO Board was focused on sub - watersheds, as suggested in the BARR 591 study and defining those areas with the highest phosphorus loads. Chair Eckman directed Ms. Correll to 592 make it clear in the Plan, while not being redundant, that the GLWMO was committed to focus on the 593 2008 BARR report "hot spots" for design and construction/installation retrofits of BMP's. Chair Eckman 594 suggested increasing the budget for retrofits to $15,000, and $100,000 for design/construction. 595 596 Mr. Petersen suggested identifying cost responsibilities for design/construct between the GLWMO and 597 grant funds. Mr. Petersen advised that he would also modify, in a broader context and with a higher 598 projected cost, shoreline assessments for other water bodies beyond Lake Emily erosion plans. 599 Mr. Maloney suggested that, while there were always projects to be done, they all cost money; and that 600 the Board may wish to state that they would work cooperatively with property owners with unique 601 situations. 602 603 Further discussion included whether there was any GLWMO participation opportunities with the Rice 604 Street reconstruction project to achieve storm water retrofits, with Mr. Schwartz advising that RCWD was 605 the lead agency on that project, and Mr. Petersen directed to remove that project to better focus on where 606 the GLWMO could make a difference; and also directing Mr. Petersen to remove the Shoreview Lake 607 redevelopment as it was not a practical use of GLWMO funds. 608 12