2010-11-30_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GRASS LAKE WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION Janet M. Guthrie Senior Policy Analyst Ramsey County Manager's Office Dear Ms. Guthrie: 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN, 55123 The Board of the Grass Lake Water Management Organization (GLWMO) would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the impact of the Ramsey County draft groundwater protection initiatives before considering any formal action as stated in your by e-mail dated 14 October 2010 As GLWMO board members, we are pleased to report that we support, in concept, the specific initiatives outlined in the draft Ramsey County Groundwater Protection Plan. Each initiative is important and relevant to our Board goals to continue groundwater protection and contribute to improving future groundwater quality. We do, however, have concerns about coordination and potential funding mechanisms as outlined in the current draft version. Individual members of the Board have expressed concerns about the timing and sources of funding for these vital initiatives. As a joint powers water management organization our board will need sufficient time to work with our member Cities and discuss funding mechanisms. At this time, we are not in a position to outline how we will work to develop possible new sources of funding. We also feel it will be critical to coordinate closely with our member cities to gain their confidence and support for the draft plan. This is especially critical because the plan states: "Discussions between the groundwater protection partners will need to take place to determine financial commitments for Plan implementation. "This wording is considered by several Board members somewhat too elastic when financial commitments are required. As board members representing the Shoreview and Roseville citizenry we would request that the plan adopt more definite and precise language when requesting financial obligations. Although the Board supports the groundwater protection initiatives, it is difficult to commit to even such important initiatives as these without a clear understanding of what financial obligations the citizens will acquire, and how other state and county initiatives to raise revenues for the plan will materialize in the future. After reading through section 5.4, some Board members are still quite concerned about the lack of detail regarding potential funding of the program, and one Board member expressed strong concerns that the scope of the initiatives in the draft is clearly not strongly synchronized with the small amount of funding that is currently identified. Consequently, there would seem to be a need for stronger commitment of state and county resources to this program as now outlined in the draft plan. The concern about coordination of groundwater management was not shared by all Board members, but one member felt strongly, and another tended to agree, that groundwater management transcends the county boundaries, and requires a much more regional strategy. Consequently, the Board would like