Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />July 18, 1990 <br />Page 5 <br />create another layer of government; however, you should have, <br />basically, the same standards throughout the watershed. <br />Upon discussion of dealing with review costs, Mr. Kelly <br />indicated they have a budget of approximately $250,275; with <br />$125,000 of that for administration. Some - expenses can be <br />billed to the developer. However, some costs come directly <br />out of the general fund. The Coon Creek Watershed district <br />has the ability, under 509, to levy taxes. <br />Specific discussion of the Coon Rapids shopping center and <br />its water runoff and related water quality was addressed. <br />Concern was expressed. Mr. Kelly noted such matters as <br />skimmers and water ponding for the project are not considered <br />standards, but rather are tools. <br />Upon further discussion of the review process, Mr. Kelly <br />stated if this board delegates the responsibility of review <br />to the cities, it does not remove the responsibility or <br />liability of this board. The more detailed, consistent <br />guidance provided to the cities the better. <br />Pearson advised that water quality issues be addressed at the <br />point of development when the development costs can be passed <br />back to the developer, because these issues will definitely <br />have to be addressed and solved in the future when the cities <br />may have to incur the expense. Certain standards must be <br />met. Pearson added both the cities and the watershed should <br />be reviewing these projects. <br />Mr. Kelly urged the board to establish adequate and uniform <br />standards and controls of review by the cities. Steps taken <br />to review a project should be clearly defined. <br />(Raatikka left at 10:00 a.m.) <br />Schrantz reiterated, as a matter of concern as a LRRWMO board <br />member, he wants to know what is going on in any community <br />other than his own. Mathisen concurred, fearing any number <br />of projects could become political should the review process <br />be handled locally with only variance requests coming before <br />this board. <br />Pearson indicated the politics is eliminated by other WMO's <br />because those members do not see the developers. The project <br />first comes through the cities. <br />Pearson and Kelly concurred this board's ideas for implement- <br />ing the operating procedures are not that far apart, agreeing <br />there may be a third alternative whereby both means can be <br />