2011-05-19_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

455 Mr. Maloney suggested an analogy to draw from in addressing the limited authority of the TAC from the 456 GLWMO Board as a whole, and comparing it to a Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) in either 457 Shoreview or Roseville, and typically having fewer volunteers to serve than needed, given most of the 458 CAC's were thankless jobs and met during evening hours. Mr. Maloney noted that, at least with the 459 GLWMO, the TMDL study would present a specific task right away; and opined that it would be 460 advantageous to have people in a position on the TAC to react to topics coming out of that study. In 461 reviewing the list of potential members, Mr. Maloney opined that it seemed to be very inclusive and noted 462 the many practitioners on that list, and their expertise with the many far - reaching topics that may come 463 before them. Mr. Maloney advised that it shouldn't be threatening to have other state and federal 464 agencies involved and that there was logic in doing so, since they'd be involved anyway; and further 465 advised that the "other resources as requested by the GLWMO Board," should serve as a catchall for any 466 other expertise required. 467 468 Member Westerberg noted the availability of an Environmental Committee in Shoreview; and Mr. 469 Maloney noted that Roseville also had a similar committee, reinforcing that the advocacy and expertise 470 was already in the system. 471 472 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 473 Motion carried as amended. 474 475 Proposed 2012 Budget 476 Mr. Petersen presented a Draft 2012 Budget (version 5.17.11) for the Board's review and discussion. The 477 Board discussed this draft budget in relation to the Implementation Table as shown in the May version of 478 the Draft Watershed Management Plan. 479 480 At the request of Chair Pro -tem Eckman as to their take on the budget direction of the representative 481 cities, Mr. Schwartz advised that the City Manager's budget direction was to keep any 2012 increases 482 within the 3% range for Roseville; and Mr. Maloney advising that the City of Shoreview had historically 483 kept funding for GLWMO separate from the rest of its operating budget; however, recognizing that the 484 proposed increase would be very noticeable, he was not comfortable carrying that message to the City 485 Council on behalf of the GLWMO Board. Mr. Maloney noted that there was a limit to what he and Mr. 486 Schwartz could do to carry the Board's message, since they were employees and recognized the tax levy 487 pressures being faced by their respective employers. Mr. Maloney further advised that, in their 488 preliminary budget calculations, he and Mr. Schwartz were both making a request for the GLWMO Board 489 of approximately $40,000 per City; but anything beyond that needed to be heard directly from the 490 GLWMO Board. 491 492 Chair Pro -tem Eckman opined that it was only fair and responsible that the GLWMO Board be the 493 messengers. 494 495 Chair Pro -tem Eckman recognized audience member Roberts for additional comment, with Mr. Roberts 496 seeking clarification on operating expense limitations and whether that excluded any capital items. Mr. 497 Roberts suggested that it may be constructive to differentiate capital from other budget expenses, and by 498 highlighting them recognizing them as two different items. 499 500 Mr. Schwartz advised that it did exclude capital items to some extent, and noted that in Roseville, the City 501 Council is currently scrutinizing utilities this year to the same extent as the tax levy. 502 503 Chair Pro -tem Eckman and Mr. Petersen concurred with Mr. Roberts' suggestion. 504 10