2011-07-21_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Applying for 2012 State Grants Ms. Correll provided a summary of potential 2012 grant applications, attached hereto and made a part of, as detailed in a July 14, 2011 memorandum from FOR and Mr. Petersen. Ms. Correll briefly provided a description of grant programs for which the GLWMO may be eligible; with additional information available once the state government was back online; but noting that each grant application had different requirements. Ms. Correll advised that FOR was offering its services pro bono to the GLWMO in drafting grant applications, at the discretion and direction of the GLWMO Board. Mr. Petersen noted that, given the report of Mr. Johnson with the RCD, there was a significant need for matching funds for riparian buffer and stormwater infiltration BMPs; noting that there appeared to be more demand than money. When Chair Eckman questioned which grant funds would be realistically applicable to a WMO the size of the GLWMO, Ms. Correll advised that grant programs did not look at the size of watersheds, but at the strength of each proposal, need of resources, and whether the application results go above and beyond that particular watershed for the overall good. With Chair Eckman's bias toward additional education, Ms. Correll noted that education was an important component for grant applications as well, and as an example, referenced the Community Partner Grant. Member Westerberg noted the need for phosphorus reduction BMP grants in the south portion of the GLWMO, referencing page 3 of the memorandum, Item #1. Ms. Correll advised that she did not include potential costs, as a certain amount would be done as part of the TMDL, researching what others had done and in partnership with the U of MN or other WD's to look at water body fish populations to get a plan for implementation activities. Ms. Correll suggested that the GLWMO apply for as many grants for which they were eligible; noting that grants #l, 2, 3 and 4 are all equally weighted; and all addressed existing water quality issues, primarily in Lake Owasso; but that the monetary value on them was all different; and if several proposals benefited the same resource, it may serve to appeal to different agencies and provide an even greater impact. Discussion ensued regarding partnerships with various groups and agencies (e.g. Central Park in Roseville); and other existing partnerships; completion of the Roseville Parks and Recreation Master Plan and plans for natural resource management and identifying potential partnering opportunities as the Roseville Parks Master Plan is implemented and incorporate those opportunities with water quality improvements. Ms. Correll noted that there were two (2) distinct groups: water quality (sustainability) and water consumption (use). Mr. Petersen opined that he was interested in Grant Items #5 and #6 to seal abandoned wells and protect shoreline. It was suggested that Grant Items #5 and #6 be included in the mix of requests 12