Laserfiche WebLink
185 <br />186 <br />187 <br />188 <br />189 <br />190 <br />191 <br />192 <br />193 <br />194 <br />195 <br />196 <br />197 <br />198 <br />199 <br />200 <br />201 <br />202 <br />203 <br />204 <br />205 <br />206 <br />207 <br />208 <br />209 Ayes: 3 <br />210 Nays: 0 <br />211 Motion carried. <br />212 <br />213 <br />214 <br />215 <br />216 <br />217 <br />218 <br />219 <br />220 <br />221 <br />222 <br />223 <br />224 <br />225 <br />226 <br />227 <br />228 <br />229 <br />230 <br />expended half of the allotted funds with the February 15, 2011 invoice, but reasoned that the <br />initial work completed during those first few months had been the most labor intensive; and that <br />efficiencies were built into the process and information provided to -date should be able to go <br />directly into the plan or used for the next stakeholder meeting. Discussion included identification <br />of "lakes" and "wetlands" for the Third Generation Plan, beyond the 2011 hybrid plan and <br />meeting state standards, and using the same categories and formatting as used in the BARR plan, <br />using state standards or GLWMO guidelines, whichever is more stringent; and which water <br />bodies should meet those standards, particularly those not falling into open water wetland <br />categories; and the need for input from representative cities and individual bo.F -tubers prior <br />to additional action, with a draft intended for the next stakeholder meeting. s. Correll advised <br />that the three items to be sent would include water body classifications, 9 x uality standards, <br />and issues /goals. Action: Individual Board members were asked to •vi• comments to <br />Mr. Petersen at their earliest convenience, for his distribution to Bo membe •r- •aration <br />for Melissa Lewis' (BWSR) attendance at a recent Task F• eeting to -ss issues <br />regarding structure and revenue change options, Chair Pro- Eckman advise hat she had <br />provided a financial history up -to -date from 2007 up t• 'ecemg of 2010. Chair Eckman <br />advised that the next Task Force meeting was scheduled arcs 111 at her house. <br />Motion 11 -02 -06 <br />Member Miller moved, and Member West seconded, t1hGLWMO adopt the State of <br />Y quality Minnesota water resource Classification s s It :assoc ated water ualit standards for <br />incorporation into the Third Generation Plan. <br />Meeting with Shorevieeosevi,f <br />Chair Pro -tem Eckman adVitOthihat :she and Ms. Correll would coordinate with Mr. Schwartz, <br />and Mr. Mal•, sible scuss additional items as needed, including Shoreview park <br />additions; Fp: (10) apitaylmprovement Plan CIP and opportunities related to Roseville <br />water ty. Further 43f cussion included a survey of the remaining limited number of city <br />own charge poin "nto Lake Owasso, with Mr. Schwartz asked to provide that list at the <br />up "o„ eeting ='ith Ms. Correll; additional infrastructure needs and responsible <br />parties /ag fo applicable outlets; and status of comments received from the last two <br />stakeholder "r� "gs and their editing /incorporation into the Plan. <br />Action Mem.Cities were asked to respond and make comment to Ms. Correll by March 7, <br />2011. Additional discussion included comparison between each representative community and <br />adjacent watershed organizations' standards for EOR guidance, including infiltration guidelines, <br />volume control standards, and applicable respective community requirements, and whether <br />applicable to new developments or certain calculations based on land disturbed for <br />redevelopment; with EOR presenting various options and making recommendations for the Third <br />Generation Plan going forward for the Board's consideration and response; and preference of the <br />City of Roseville for Capitol Region Watershed District standards, as they had been developed <br />5 <br />