2012-02-16_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 seemed to be the most prudent approach at this time. If the member cities proceeded with asking the GLWMO to pursue the dissolution process, Chair Miller opined that he didn't think anything else would come of the Plan under the auspices of this organization. Discussion ensued related to the GLWMO Board's responsibility to determine which agency to seek merger with; first step for the GLWMO Board to accept the resolution petitioning dissolution; work done to -date by the Board on merger options and their individual specifics serving as valuable background information; logic of pursuing Ramsey/Washington or Vadnais Area WMO given their geographical proximity; and a future recommendation of the GLWMO Board to B WSR and the cities getting which option was best, even though B WSR nor the cities would not be obliged to honor that ,9 tion. Further discussion included benefits of adding member cities as supporting endation of the GLWMO Board; and future steps in moving toward dissolution of the GLW Revised 2012 Budget/Remaining Funds N� Mr. Petersen provided a DRAFT GLWMO 2012 Budget Utilizing y and Balance re ues (version 01/16/12), showing a total fund balance of $79,833.00; and so t 3AMO Board d rection on how active they wished to be as a group, i.e., which programs they ted ement, for the remainder of their existence. Mr. Petersen and Mr. Johnson estimated that there were twelve conservation project plans currently in the process for cost -share funding consideration. Mr. sen recommended that those property owners be encouraged to implement r(54 manage men an (BMP) projects while funds remained available. Mr. Ryan reviewed the stat ects: those he anticipated coming to fruition and those still remaining in limbo. Mr. that of the twelve pending plans, there were probably seven (7) shoreline projects, and fit m g en projects. Discussion ensued regarding date; if and how to approach of their projects based on de use of fund balances, sp need for this type of w By consensus, Mr. those in the d them to mo orw Mr. Petersei continue the and pr rr d action for 2012 prior to the GLWMO sunset is with to specific for implementation and/or completion e; and ether additional projects should be pursued to make s around Lakes Owasso and Wabasso, given the great n activity. A to make contact with property owners with pending projects or to the current and future status of the GLWMO and encouraging as whether to pursue other participants; publications to alert property owners ed that the GLWMO Board earmark $15,000 of the remaining fund balance to BMP cost -share program from now to the October, 2012 GLWMO Board meeting. Member Barrett sought assurances that if a project remained incomplete or their invoices were not submitted by the required date, would they not be reimbursed for their BMP projects? Mr. Petersen stated the contracts could be passed to the cities once the GLWMO "sun- sets" to assure participants would receive funding. Mr. Johnson concurred with that rationale; noting that the biggest issue was the timing in getting contractors who were available to complete the project in a timely manner, noting that they experienced lag time that was available for these smaller projects and interesting them in bidding. Mr. Johnson opined 4