Laserfiche WebLink
Joint WMO Mtg. /Member Cities <br />February 21, 1990 <br />Page 5 <br />the LRRWMO to handle the project review issue, and respond <br />back through their LRRWMO representative. <br />Perry and Knight queried how the future LRRWMO, once solidly <br />established, would be structured and whether or not it would <br />contain civilian representation. Pearson stated the most <br />effective organizations are the ones where there are mostly <br />technical staff involved working in the field. Councils can <br />then rely on the•fact that the commission is giving a good <br />set of recommendations to the developers. Nagel suggested <br />the possibility of having four technical board members with <br />one citizen representative. <br />Reimann stated the cities should go on notice that water <br />quality is the number one concern. A step could be elimin- <br />ated by controlling what happens in the cities, which would <br />lessen the LRRWMO's job. <br />Cotten suggested the cities should establish a criteria to be <br />put in place with our Planning Commissions. Their initial <br />review of these project developments with these established <br />guidelines could eliminate potential water quality problems <br />later in the review process. weaver confirmed it is the <br />board's hope that the standards they are recommending would <br />be included in the cities' planning process. Knight agreed <br />that if similar ordinances were created within the member <br />cities along with standards addressing the water quality <br />issues, a good share of the problems would be caught at the <br />city level. <br />There being no further discussion, Schrantz declared the <br />meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />Aal� <br />Mava Mikkonen <br />Recording Secretary <br />