Laserfiche WebLink
277 advised that he would anticipate making periodic recommendations to the Board on where those <br />278 hours could or should be reallocated during the contract year. <br />279 <br />280 Mr. Goodnature noted refinement of his original proposal breaking down total costs, following <br />281 discussions at the November 30, 2010 GLWMO Board meeting, indicating cost breakdowns for <br />282 potential website enhancements beyond those originally indicated for regular updates; and <br />283 offered that as another option for the Board's consideration. <br />284 <br />285 Chair Ferrington clarified that the Board was looking for not just posting of information, but <br />286 major modifications to the appearance and functionality of the GLMWO Board website; and <br />287 questioned if it would be fair to add an additional twenty (20) hours to the RCD proposal for that <br />288 specific website area. <br />289 <br />290 Mr. Goodnature concurred that twenty (20) hours would be a safe estimate; however, clarified <br />291 that in refining his original proposal, he didn't want to get too far from the original proposal, but <br />292 anticipating management of one or two grants in 2011 for the GLWMO, the additional twenty <br />293 (20) hours seemed to be a good estimated. <br />294 <br />295 Chair Ferrington questioned if either Mr. Goodnature or Mr. Petersen were aware of other grant <br />296 opportunities beyond BWSR. <br />297 <br />298 Mr. Goodnature advised that many of the grants were not applicable to WMO's, and that BWSR <br />299 was the largest grant provider of funds. However, Mr. Goodnature noted that the DNR <br />300 occasionally had grants available that could be applicable to WMO's; but reiterated that it was <br />301 ongoing practice for the RCD to continually review those sites, as well as federal sites; and that <br />302 those grants were usually listed on the BWSR and MPCA sites as well. <br />303 <br />304 Mr. Petersen noted that the Metropolitan Council occasionally had grant funds available as well. <br />305 <br />306 Chair Ferrington sought Mr. Petersen's personal experience with the Metropolitan Council as far <br />307 as networking opportunities. <br />308 <br />309 Mr. Petersen reviewed his experience with the various stormwater districts in the region, and past <br />310 funds available for shoreline restoration projects. <br />311 <br />312 Chair Ferrington sought comment from Mr. Petersen related to a concern previously raised by <br />313 Member Westerberg on how to strategize or act on recommendations from the Barr Report; and <br />314 opined that the DNR pilot program referenced by Mr. Petersen seemed like a good opportunity to <br />315 take advantage of, and asked that Mr. Petersen outline his experiences with similar grants. <br />316 <br />317 Mr. Petersen reviewed the criteria of the DNR grant for whole bay or whole lake treatment; <br />318 noting that the grant proposal stated upfront that the number of new lakes would be limited; with <br />319 a cost share between 38- 100 and that they were looking specifically for lakes having <br />320 performed point source intercept assessments of aquatic vegetation in the past three years. Mr. <br />321 Petersen noted that the Lake Owasso Study had accomplished that through the macrophyte <br />322 survey. Mr. Petersen advised that the commitment would be for three (3) years; grant funding <br />7 <br />