2011-01-20_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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