Laserfiche WebLink
306 Discussion ensued regarding the revised budget for Member Miller's benefit related to his <br />307 upcoming presentation to member City Councils. <br />308 <br />309 Discussion included how significant engineering consulting services would be after the Third <br />310 Generation Plan was adopted, including redevelopment situations in member cities and the need <br />311 for the GLWMO to have a voice at the table; use by cities of consulting engineering firms hired <br />312 for their expertise that would only duplicate the Board's efforts to determine water quality <br />313 performance standards, with the Board serving more in an administrative review capacity, <br />314 without the need for its own engineer; use of additional funds allocated to engineering services <br />315 for BMP projects to protect lakes in the watershed, with a comparable amount for CIP projects. <br />316 <br />317 Motion 11- 1111-09 <br />318 Member Westerberg moved, and Member Von De Linde seconded approval of the 2012 Revised <br />319 Draft Budget (v. 11.15.1 ltpp) as presented. <br />320 <br />321 Member Miller, without a more thorough review of operating expenses under <br />322 General /Administration ((line 9) noted that discussions had included moving forward with two <br />323 (2) FTE's, and questioned if this budget underestimated for an administrative /executive director <br />324 position in the future. Member Miller noted that Task Force Member Jim DeBenedet, in his <br />325 analysis and research, suggested a $100,000 annual salary/benefit allotment if they were <br />326 employees of the GLWMO Board. Member Miller opined that the figure Mr. Petersen presented <br />327 in the 2012 Budget seemed low to him and while recognizing that some individual Board <br />328 members may have areas of expertise, the actual costs remained an unknown. Member Miller <br />329 further opined that, if the Board chose to remain independent and create a strong presence, they <br />330 would need a strong, focused leader for their administrator /executive director devoting their full - <br />331 time attention to the GLWMO in a professional capacity using their expertise, and that such an <br />332 individual would not be inexpensive to hire. <br />333 <br />334 Chair Eckman noted additional Board time and oversight costs as well with having employees <br />335 rather than contracting those services out. <br />336 <br />337 Member Von De Linde questioned how the Board could support anything other than contracted <br />338 services rather than an employee. <br />339 <br />340 Members all concurred that this amount should be doubled; with Member Barrett suggesting that <br />341 the funds be reallocated from the Engineer on Retainer category (line 13), since there appeared to <br />342 be an overlap of duties. <br />343 <br />344 Mr. Petersen suggested that $20,000 be reallocated from the Engineer Retainer (line 13) and <br />345 moved to General Administration/Management (line 9) increasing the amount from $33,000 to <br />346 $53,000 to retain budget totals each year. <br />347 <br />348 Member Miller questioned what was anticipated for the three (3) year Misc. Engineer Retainer <br />349 (line 13) beyond the phosphorus budget example; recommending that that line be reduced by <br />350 $20,000 in 2012 and in 2013 (from $50,500 to $30,500) and reduced from $43,000 to $23,000 in <br />351 year 2014. <br />352 <br />353 Members all concurred. <br />354 <br />355 Chair Eckman suggested that line 13 be revised from "Misc. Eng. Serv. On retainer;" to simply <br />356 state "Misc. Engineering Services." <br />7 <br />