2012-01-19_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

204 the contracts could be passed to the cities once the GLWMO "sun- sets" to assure participants would 205 receive funding. 206 207 Mr. Johnson concurred with that rationale; noting that the biggest issue was the timing in getting 208 contractors who were available to complete the project in a timely manner, noting that they experienced 209 lag time that was available for these smaller projects and interesting them in bidding. Mr. Johnson opined 210 that by getting bids now (in February) before they got busy, and before spring thaw, to get the projects 211 completed within the proposed nine (9) month timeframe (current date through October 2012. 212 213 Mr. Petersen suggested, as a safety valve, that monies could be escrowed post - sunset of the GLWMO 214 with authority given to member cities where a project resided. 215 216 Mr. Petersen noted that two (2) projects had already received approval by the GLWMO Board: 217 Iwan Property at $1,000.00; and Reiland $Property at $1,000.00. 218 219 Chair Miller stated that he was supportive of those with plan designs in place having this opportunity; 220 however, he was concerned about casting a wider net to solicit more projects; preferring that the 221 GLWMO Board remain focus on those pending plans and providing an opportunity for their completion. 222 223 Motion 12- 0111-03 224 Member Von De Linde moved, and Member Barrett seconded, in addition to the current $7,100.00 225 encumbered for pending projects, approval of allocating an additional $10,000.00 for projects still in the 226 design/planning stages with the RCD, contingent upon those pending projects entering into cost -share 227 agreements by the June 14, 2012 GLWMO meeting date at the latest; with all projects installed, 228 completed, and approved by the GLWMO Board by their October 12, 2012 meeting to be considered for 229 funding; and authorizing the Chair to sign a revised Technical Services Agreement with the Ramsey 230 Conservation District (RCD) for additional technical service support of the RCD in an amount not to 231 exceed $5,000.00. 232 233 Discussion ensued on contract and construction /installation deadlines and their feasibility. 234 235 Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 236 237 Mr. Petersen had provided a list of decisions needed in the near future by the GLWMO Board, as detailed 238 in his Memorandum dated January 13, 2012 and included in agenda packet materials. 239 240 Subwatershed Retrofit Analysis 241 Mr. Petersen suggested that the GLWMO Board consider expending some of their remaining funds on 242 conservation activities providing significant data on where to locate BMP's to be most effective. Mr. 243 Petersen explained that these studies look at small geographic areas in larger geographic watersheds and 244 would serve to refine data already available through the UAA/BARR studies that had identified the most 245 phosphorus loading areas draining to Lake Owasso. Mr. Petersen advised that Mike Goodnature of the 246 RCD had provided a proposal for identifying effective BMP areas draining to Lake Owasso, at a cost of 247 approximately $12,000.00, with the work done within two (2) months. Mr. Petersen noted that Mr. 248 Goodnature anticipated State cost -share funding through grant funds of approximately $3,000.00 to 249 reduce the project cost. 250 251 Mr. Petersen spoke in support of the GLWMO Board pursuing the analysis, noting that this would leave 252 member cities, particularly the City of Roseville, and the future governing organization with good 253 information with which to move forward on Lake Owasso's phosphorus loading issues. Mr. Petersen