2011-01-20_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

181 Mr. Petersen concurred, noting that the Ramsey County Public Works Dept. had concerns with 182 the grant terms prohibiting 24D on the beach and getting consensus from residents to not use 183 24d. Mr. Petersen opined that applying for the grant at a future time may be worth considering. 184 NO FURTHER ACTION NOW. 185 186 Third Generation Watershed Management Plan Figures Mr. Petersen provided a handout, 187 attached hereto and made a part hereof, consisting of a Memorandum to the GLWMO Board 188 dated January 20, 2011 from Camilla Correll, Project Manager for EOR, and entitled, "GLWMO 189 Watershed Management Plan Figures." 190 The memorandum listed figures, in accordance with MN Rule 8410.0170 requirements, that 191 needed to be included in the Plan, and that had not been incorporated into the initial EOR 192 proposal and subsequent executed contract. EOR requested a decision from the Board on how to 193 proceed with the compiling and /or creating these figures. 194 Discussion included whether City staff or Mr. Petersen had access to, or could produce the map 195 figures in -house with the assistance of Ramsey Conservation District personnel; those already 196 available in electronic format and only needing updating; lack of availability of phosphorus 197 loading information for Lake Owasso in the City of Roseville; possibility of accessing 198 information from the BARR study and identifying proprietary ownership; and updating of 199 electronic base maps. 200 Figures Provided by the Cities 201 Mr. Schwartz identified those items that could be provided by the City of Roseville through GIS 202 coverage information (Figures 10 Existing Land Use, and Future Land Use 11, and potentially 203 Figure 6 Storm sewer System Map as part of the recent Comprehensive Plan Update) that would 204 provide Roseville and Shoreview data. 205 When asked by Chair Pro -tem Eckman for cost estimates in the City of Roseville providing that 206 information, Mr. Schwartz advised that it would depend on the staff time required; noting that if 207 it was simply basic maps there was no concern on his part; however, if the work required 2 -3 208 days of staff time of more, there would be additional expenses, but probably at less of an hourly 209 rate than that estimated by EOR at $50.00 per hour. 210 EOR 211 Further discussion included more detailed review of the EOR memorandum, including whether 212 or not the maps completed as part of the 2001 Second Generation Plan could be utilized as a base 213 and updated; Mr. Schwartz's consideration for the Cities to create the maps and EOR could 214 further refine them; and Mr. Petersen's concern that some of the figures should be fairly simple 215 to acquire (e.g. Figure 13) from cities and incorporate into EOR's base maps; with Mr. Schwartz 216 concurring with Mr. Petersen. 217 Mr. Petersen expressed concern that the larger question was not whether or not the information 218 existed, but why EOR didn't consider the need for these figures, clearly defined in MN Rule 219 8410.0170 when they put their proposal together. 220 Mr. Schwartz referenced Task Two (2) on Page 6 of the EOR proposal where a description and 221 assumptions were listed. Mr. Schwartz opined that while most of the figures in this plan were 222 not the same as required on their list, it was EOR's responsibility to understand the Rule and 223 determine what additional figures would be required for the Third Generation Plan from the 224 Second Generation Plan, and identify those distinctions in their proposal and costs. 225 Chair Pro -tem Eckman opined that the GLWMO Board should pay for generation and updating 226 any of the map figures in the Second Generation Plan that only exist in hard copy format; but 5