2010-12-15_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

231 grants applicable to the GLWMO as well. Mr. Goodnature reviewed sources of potential WMO 232 grants, including BWSR, and networking with various agencies and organizations in keeping 233 aware of grant opportunities. 234 235 Chair Ferrington noted that, from his experience in his profession, searching for grant 236 opportunities and reviewing RFP's was a time consuming effort, whether subsequent 237 applications were successful or not, and questioned Mr. Goodnature on his estimate of the time 238 the RCD would dedicate for this process to ensure the GLWMO didn't miss any opportunities. 239 240 Mr. Goodnature reiterated that actively searching for grants was a given for the RCD, and that 241 the RCD was always performing that search with potential partnering opportunities, such as with 242 the GLWMO, in mind; and noted that any RCD time would be budgeted into the grant 243 application and proposal. 244 245 Member Manzara asked Mr. Petersen a similar question, given his previous role as the RCD 246 contact person, for his estimate for preparation of the application, discussions with member cities 247 and other time needed in the application. 248 249 Mr. Petersen estimated ten (10) to fifteen (15) hours per grant for the search and application 250 process, including involvement with respective city staff in identifying projects, preparing the 251 application, and determining cost -share or in -kind funding sources as applicable. 252 253 Mr. Petersen noted one special grant opportunity he was aware of through the Department of 254 Natural Resources (DNR) coming available in January of 2011 for a pilot program for control of 255 Eurasian Milfoil and Curly Leaf Pond Weed on whole -lake basis. 256 257 Using past grant applications as an example, Mr. Goodnature opined that his estimate for a grant 258 application coordination and processing would average approximately ten (10) hours. 259 260 Member Westerberg recalled Barr Engineering providing a spreadsheet listing available grants 261 that to him seemed fairly structured and routine. 262 263 Chair Ferrington noted that the list of available grants needed to be continually updated and 264 reviewed as they became out -of -date and as new opportunities arose. 265 266 Member Manzara questioned how criteria for qualifying were determined. 267 268 Mr. Goodnature advised that the RCD routinely and actively searched at the beginning of 2010 269 potential grant opportunities; research deadlines; potential partnerships; and other criteria, noting 270 that similar searches had alerted them to grant opportunities and application for the Aladdin 271 Street and Sharon Street projects. 272 273 Mr. Petersen noted that he had estimated hours for grant research and processing in detail on his 274 proposal; however, he emphasized that hours were only estimates, and allocations for service 275 could be shifted as indicated throughout the service year; and as the annual grant portfolio 276 became available and it was determined which were applicable to the GLWMO. Mr. Petersen 6