2011-11-17_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 Councilmembers on previous GLWMO Boards; upcoming terms that will be vacant on the Board with the two expiring Shoreview terms and lack of reapplication by Members Eckman and Westerberg; and Shoreview's decision to defer advertising for candidates for those vacancies (both Shoreview positions) until a decision was made by the respective City Council's on the revised JPA; and member city criticism of the Plan to -date that it was insufficiently funded, a perspective shared by both Mr. Maloney and Mr. Schwartz. Member Von De Linde advised that she was aware of one resident from the Lake Wabasso Association expressing interest applying to the GLWMO Board, and her referring that person to the City of Shoreview. Chair Eckman summarized the FOR e -mail and their preference to hold off on additional amendments to the draft Plan until the respective City Council's made their decisions, since if it was determined that the GLWMO merges with another agency her responses on the Plan would require far less detail for those first three (3) years in the implementation plan and budget. D) 2012 -2014 Budget Chair Eckman compared Mr. Petersen's revised 2012 budget draft (v. 11.15.11. tpp) with that presented to member City Councils in June of 2011; noting that it included years 2012, 2013, as well as year 2014 when the Major Plan Amendment was anticipated. If revenue remained at $300,000 annually, any fund balance created in 2012 thru 2014 would become depleted. Mr. Petersen noted that the $300,000 revenue was a baseline and did not factor in any grant awards or other revenue; with approximately $24,000 remaining in fund balances in year 2015 with the annual $300,000 revenue, and if the estimated $80,000 for (line 15) was an accurate assumption, opining that it may not be realistic to anticipate that high of a cost for the Amendment. Mr. Petersen advised that Ms. Correll had provided the projected cost for the Amendment at $70,000, and Chair Eckman had increased that amount to $80,000; however, he thought this may be high for just an amendment and not a full plan. Mr. Petersen noted that this budget, as presented, was the budget that was included to member cities for the November 21, 2011 City Council meetings and presentation by Mr. Miller. Chair Eckman rationalized her increase in the amount to ensure the Board was not put in a similar position in the future as compared to the present situation with insufficient contract amounts experienced by FOR in developing the Third Generation Plan. Member Westerberg noted that the Board would have the opportunity to seek bids and was not tied to FOR doing the work; however, Chair Eckman noted that a low bidder may not provide an accurate bid that would be sufficient to cover the work, putting additional pressure on the Board and its projected annual budgets. Discussion ensued regarding various categories of the budget presented tonight by Mr. Petersen, including General Administration/Project Administration (line 9); $45 per hour billing rate for those administration/technical services for a total of $41,000; education/outreach (line 18) for the Board hiring an FTE or contracting it out or through cooperative ventures with other WMO's; assumptions with this budget that there would be no facility expenses; use of an independent contractor, such as Mr. Petersen, for administrative/technical services and no overhead expenses; and the potential addition of a clerical position with low overhead. While recognizing the assumptions required in this type of budget process, Member Westerberg noted that the budget made assumptions that the TMDL/WRAPP Study by the MPCA would