2009-11-17_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GRASS LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION November 17, 2009 Chair Eckman asked what role Roseville and Shoreview would have. Schwartz responded that would be the decision of the Board. He would see updating the website and having a representative as a technical advisor at each meeting. Ferrington stated that it is important to maintain good communication with GLWMO constituents. One of the ways to improve would be by posting meeting agendas on the website. Interested residents would have time to comment and make recommendations on a matter of interest before a decision is made. Schwartz stated that it is anticipated that the website will be up within a week and suggested a page specifically for project updates. Peterson acknowledged that there would be some ongoing cost-effective items done by city staff, which can be further identified as the Board moves forward. Schwartz noted that because GLWMO does not have taxing authority, GLWMO is related to the cities for funding requests and the budget process. Areas where there may be an overlap of overhead can be minimized. GLWMO has the latitude to create contractual relationships, such as for administrative support. Ferrington stated a discussion is needed to decide on how the Board should govern itself and align with various groups. He would prefer to address the Board's direction after public input and would not want to move quickly. Then the Board would hold a workshop meeting to resolve governance issues. Resident Quitevis agreed with Ferrington and stated that getting input would make operations smoother. When the Board has made decisions in the past, no one knows what is going on and residents want to see results. Chair Eckman agreed that she would like the residents to know ahead of time what is being discussed at Board meetings so Board activities are more transparent, but unless this housekeeping item is taken care of, the Board cannot carry on its activities. Westerberg stated that by statute governance authority resides with the Board. The issue is to resolve the need for staff, not major political issues. Root agreed and stated that the proposal would provide services for productive, organized meetings. He would like to see RCD start January 1, 2010. He asked if the 2010 budget would increase with this proposal and whether the Board would be in the position of having to ask for more money from the cities. Aichinger responded that the proposal would be revenue neutral to the budget and absorbed by what is allocated for Ramsey/Washington overhead education which is lumped in with website community education. This category totals $14,300, which is in excess of the current proposal. MOTION: by Ferrington, seconded by Root to table the decision on the administrative support proposal until the Board has had time for further review with the goal of making a decision at the next meeting.