Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Exhibit 2 <br /> <br />Motion carried. V oting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Elvig, Jeffrey, Dehen, <br />Look, and Strommen. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmember Olson. <br /> <br />Case #3: <br /> <br />Consider Approval of Environmental Policy Board Work Plan <br /> <br />Interim Community Development Director Frolik stated the Environmental Policy Board <br />(EPB) is responsible for developing an annual work plan that is subject to the approval of <br />City Council. At their January meeting, the EPB finalized its work plan and directed staff <br />to forward it to Council for consideration and approval. Ms. Frolik requested Council to <br />review the EPB work plan. She stated if Council has any pertine hanges the work plan <br />can be brought back to the EPB for review and included ,y Council Consent <br />Agenda for ratification. <br /> <br />from City Code regarding the EPB. He <br />edundancy of the EPB and the Lower Rum River <br />(LRRWMO). He stated Council approved the <br />gree .C7 t (JPA), and the LRRWMO is dealing with soil <br />erosIOn f pollution. The LRR WMO goes out and actually solicits <br />engmeenng e scientific specifics relating to erosion. His concern is that <br />the City is air e LRRWMO for these measures, and the LRRWMO is <br />mcurrmg expenses rmine the impacts of erosion, etc. He stated he is hesitant to say <br />the City should ha redundant policy board to look at some of the same things the <br />LRRWMO is looking at. <br /> <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen pointed out that this <br />thinking that the first item would probably be <br />suggested the EPB may want an opportunit <br />discussion on what they plan to do. <br /> <br />rmulated with the <br />r the year. She <br />and have a <br /> <br />eft open enough and there <br /> <br />Councilmember S <br />should be pulled <br /> <br />third item under the first bullet point <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated several things in government are redundant. However, if there is <br />something that the City wants to support, with the EPB they may be able to argue the <br />point in a manner that is beneficial to the City, rather than leaving it completely to an <br />outside board. He stated several years ago there were a couple of issues in regards to <br />wetlands where the City actually went in and worked with the people and was able to <br />have three to four homes built in an area where the LRRWMO was not in favor of doing <br /> <br />City Council / January 22, 2008 <br />Page 10 of22 <br />