Laserfiche WebLink
184 become aware of the Third Generation Plan process and implementation components that may <br />185 suggest more spending beyond the historical annual request, it may provide for interesting <br />186 dialogue. <br />187 <br />188 Chair Ferrington concurred, noting the need for advocating the Board's vision in seeking and <br />189 leveraging outside base funds beyond those funds provided by member cities, via grants and <br />190 contracts that were consistent with the goals of the GLWMO Board. Chair Ferrington referred to <br />191 the successful grants and partnerships, such as recently accomplished with the City of Roseville <br />192 and their Capital Investment Program (CIP) for cost -share opportunities that provided positive <br />193 benefits to all parties. <br />194 <br />195 Member Manzara observed that those partnership opportunities and accomplishments were not <br />196 something well documented by the GLWMO, indicating how much money had been leveraged <br />197 for specific projects. <br />198 <br />199 Ms. Bloom advised that she had just received word earlier today that the Dale Street/Bennett <br />200 Lake Project had not been successful in making the final cut for funds; and out of ninety -six (96) <br />201 projects requesting funding, the Dale Street Project had been ranked as number sixty -nine (69), <br />202 but funding had stopped at project number sixty-three (63). <br />203 <br />204 While disappointing, Chair Ferrington observed that, with that high of a ranking, the project <br />205 should remain competitive for next year's grant cycle, if the 2011 cycle used similar criteria. <br />206 <br />207 Mr. Goodnature observed that, unfortunately, funding criteria sometimes changes on an annual <br />208 basis. <br />209 <br />210 Mr. Petersen concurred, opining that he anticipated considerable revision in how Legacy Act <br />211 funding may be distributed in the future. <br />212 <br />213 Chair Ferrington noted the need for the Board to remain aware of future policy actions by the <br />214 Board of the Legacy Fund. <br />215 <br />216 2011 Technical Support Services Contract <br />217 Chair Ferrington and individual Board members reviewed comparables of the two (2) proposals <br />218 previously received from the Ramsey Conservation District (RCD) through Mr. Goodnature, and <br />219 that of Mr. Petersen as an Individual Contractor. Chair Ferrington noted that general service <br />220 categories were similar, and the only substantive differences appeared to be in hourly rates, <br />221 estimated hours allotted to specific categories, and the total amount for those proposed services. <br />222 <br />223 Member Manzara noted that not all members of the Board were sufficiently aware of the detailed <br />224 time required in researching and processing grant applications and/or their subsequent <br />225 management; and sought additional information of Mr. Goodnature on how the RCD would <br />226 realistically search out applicable grants for the GLWMO over the next twelve (12) months. <br />227 <br />228 Mr. Goodnature advised that the RCD was dependent on grants for their day -to -day operations as <br />229 well; and that their ongoing searches for grants for the District would include a parallel search of <br />5 <br />