My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2008-04-24_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Grass Lake WMO
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2008
>
2008-04-24_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2010 2:59:24 PM
Creation date
4/16/2010 2:43:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Grass Lake WMO
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/24/2008
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
GLWMO MINUTES <br />JANUARY 24, 2008 <br />PAGES <br />Shoreview to make the watershed a transparent layer of government and to leverage <br />existing resources.. <br />Mogg stated that the first item listed in the original Joint Powers Agreement regarding <br />Board activities is a statement to save money. He explained that is why he tends to vote <br />against projects that cost money. He would like further discussion about spending money <br />because he does not want to see the structure changed, resulting in higher taxes. He <br />would support the watershed serving cities without having to go to another level of <br />administration. <br />Maloney stated that during the last legislative session data was collected to determine if <br />certain types of watershed districts are viable. One indicator used by the Legislative <br />Auditor in the report was how much money was actually being spent toward improving <br />or protecting water resources. Because GLWMO spends so little, as compared to most <br />watershed districts, there's a real danger in the question being raised as to why it exists as <br />a joint powers body as opposed to a District with direct taxation authority. <br />Ferrington noted that there is also risk in not spending money that there is a perception <br />that the Board falls low in producing results. There could be a suggestion of a merger <br />into a larger organization, which raises issues of maintaining local control. <br />It was the consensus of the Board to finalize a format for the financial report at the next <br />meeting. <br />C. Invoices <br />C-1 Invoices to be considered for payment: <br />Maloney stated that the first of the two invoices is for just under $12,000 for Barr <br />Engineering far work in accordance with the study contract. The second invoice is from <br />the City of Shoreview for technical staff time and administrative functions not contracted <br />with Ramsey-Washington Watershed District in the amount of $12,571.03. <br />It was the consensus of the Board for the invoices to be paid. <br />Aichinger noted that it would be helpful for the financial report to summarize the <br />invoices being presented for payment. <br />It was the consensus of the Board for the financial report to include bills presented as <br />paid or proposed to be paid. <br />D. Other Business <br />D-1 Lake Owasso Study Agreement and Update <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.