2011-01-20_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

138 Member Eckman noted that 2011 was the first year a carryover had been shown for the cost 139 share BMP program, since that had been originally set up as a dedicated fund, rather than 140 included in the General Fund. 141 142 New Business 143 144 Review of 2011 Budget Requests to the Cities of Roseville and Shoreview 145 Ms. Bloom advised that the City of Roseville City Council had approved the 2011 Budget on 146 December 6, 2010; and it was her understanding that monies for the GLWMO were approved as 147 requested. Ms. Bloom noted that she could provide that information at the next GLWMO 148 meeting. 149 150 Member Eckman noted that the 2011 Budget request to cities was more than previous years at 151 $37,500 per member city for a total of $75,000; to be added to money the reserves for the 152 operational budget and to provide matching funds for grants. 153 154 Chair Ferrington noted that, if the date for submission of budget requests to cities was June 1, a 155 budget development discussion needed to be initiated at the beginning of 2011, preferably 156 January. 157 158 Member Eckman suggested that a timeline of each required action during a calendar year be 159 completed so individual board members were aware of those scheduling benchmarks. 160 161 Member Manzara advised that the JPA included a summary statement for operations and 162 scheduling; and as the potential incoming Board Chair suggested that it may be a good exercise 163 for her to develop it and submit to board members. 164 165 Member Eckman noted that BWSR had great tools on their website, including a checklist of 166 things needing done by WMO's and their due dates. 167 168 Chair Ferrington concurred, advising that the BWSR checklist was what he attempted to work 169 from, and suggested that he and incoming Chair Manzara review those checklists through their 170 Transition Subcommittee. 171 172 Related to the 2011 Budget, Mr. Maloney advised that the City of Shoreview would not take 173 action on the final 2011 City Budget until their next City Council meeting; however, he further 174 advised that the GLWMO 2001 Budget request remained intact in the recommended budget, and 175 he didn't anticipate any questions. 176 177 Mr. Maloney requested, for purposes of projecting budget requests for a five (5) -year cycle, 178 advised that he had flagged a similar budget number for the GLWMO over that period. Mr. 179 Maloney noted that this may need updating as the GLWMO Board moved into their discussions 180 for implementation of the Third Generation Plan above and beyond current static operations. 181 Mr. Maloney noted that, at this point with the JPA being operated by the respective cities and not 182 the GLWMO Board directly. Thus, the annual GLWMO Budget request was a line item in the 183 overall City budget that received little public fanfare; however, he opined that once people 4