2010-05-27_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Subsequent discussion of topics related to developing future budgets and work plans included: (1) planning stormwater management systems in commercial areas of Roseville, and /or a buffer stabilization program on South Owasso; (2) costs of a diagnostic plant study; (3) better knowledge of successful processes used by Rice Creek Watershed District and the Vadnais Lake Water Management Organization to fund infra structure development, (4) sources of additional monies and services available for a retrofit analysis through the Metropolitan Conservation District; (5) necessity of budgeting monies for commissioner education (including a suggestion of increasing by $500 the 2011 budget line to include registration and attendance at applicable educational seminars, such as the upcoming MAWD meeting), as well as orientation education for new board members; (6) with the consensus that the Board needed to make a concerted effort to be more enlightened through participation in these opportunities. Further discussion included an amendment to the motion to increase the draft 2011 budget by $500 from $97,800 to $98,300. Mr. Schwartz, speaking on behalf of he and Mr. Maloney in their respective cities, noted attempts to keep budgets in line for 2011, but expressed willingness to present the request at the discretion of the Board to their cities. But Mr. Schwartz emphasized staff's preference to keep the request at or near $25,000 per City. Chair Ferrington clarified the amounts requested from each City and stated that some resources from Board reserves, in accordance with the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) could be used for the 2011 budget, if approved. Other discussion centered on items to implement in upcoming City work plans, the possibility of an Assessment of Snail Lake, developing a Third Generation GLWMO Comprehensive Plan, and steps toward implementation of the Lake Owasso study. Members discussed logical steps, if this budget is adopted, in seeking conversations directly with each city to define the needs and what has been accomplished, as well as linking water quality to economic development and property values in the area, with the ultimate goal of the GLWMO to maintain or increase water quality as a function of their efforts, and modeling the economic impact of improvements in water quality in assessed values which increase tax revenue for cities that would result through effective watershed management by the GLWMO. Mr. Schwartz reminded the Board that, if the Board went before the City Councils, he and Mr. Maloney could be on opposite ends of the GLWMO budget request, as they both had other watershed districts in their respective jurisdictions also levying taxes; and suggested that it may be a good time to have a discussion related to levying specific to residents within their district. Members concurred, with Member Eckman personally agreeing that, as a resident in the GLWMO district in Shoreview, she had no problem paying additional taxes for improved water quality. Chair Ferrington suggested that the Board consider providing alternative modeling options or "what if' scenarios of economic impacts to residents that are part of Watershed District at the individual taxpayer level. Member Eckman, the maker of the motion offered to amend it to read as follows: 8