2010-12-15_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

139 Member Eckman noted that 2011 was the first year a carryover had been shown for the cost 140 share BMP program, since that had been originally set up as a dedicated fund, rather than 141 included in the General Fund. 142 143 New Business 144 145 Review of 2011 Budget Requests to the Cities of Roseville and Shoreview 146 Ms. Bloom advised that the City of Roseville City Council had approved the 2011 Budget on 147 December 6, 2010; and it was her understanding that monies for the GLWMO were approved as 148 requested. Ms. Bloom noted that she could provide that information at the next GLWMO 149 meeting. 150 151 Member Eckman noted that the 2011 Budget request to cities was more than previous years at 152 $36,863 per member city for a total of $73,726; to be added to money from the reserves for the 153 operational budget and to provide matching funds for grants. 154 155 Chair Ferrington noted that, if the date for submission of budget requests to cities was June 1, a 156 budget development discussion needed to be initiated at the beginning of 2011, preferably 157 January. 158 159 Member Eckman suggested that a timeline of each required action during a calendar year be 160 completed so individual board members were aware of those scheduling benchmarks. 161 162 Member Manzara advised that the JPA included a summary statement for operations and 163 scheduling; and as the potential incoming Board Chair suggested that it may be a good exercise 164 for her to develop it and submit to board members. 165 166 Member Eckman noted that BWSR had great tools on their website, including a checklist of 167 things needing done by WMO's and their due dates. 168 169 Chair Ferrington concurred, advising that the BWSR checklist was what he attempted to work 170 from, and suggested that he and incoming Chair Manzara review those checklists through their 171 Transition Subcommittee. 172 173 Related to the 2011 Budget, Mr. Maloney advised that the City of Shoreview would not take 174 action on the final 2011 City Budget until their next City Council meeting; however, he further 175 advised that the GLWMO 2001 Budget request remained intact in the recommended budget, and 176 he didn't anticipate any questions. 177 178 Mr. Maloney requested, for purposes of projecting budget requests for a five (5) -year cycle, 179 advised that he had flagged a similar budget number for the GLWMO over that period. Mr. 180 Maloney noted that this may need updating as the GLWMO Board moved into their discussions 181 for implementation of the Third Generation Plan above and beyond current static operations. 182 Mr. Maloney noted that, at this point, the JPA Plan is being implemented by the respective cities 183 and not by the GLWMO Board directly. Thus, the annual GLWMO Budget request was a line 184 item in the overall City budget that received little public fanfare; however, he opined that once 4