Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />November 20, 1991 <br />Page 3 <br />be charged to projects for which a permit fee has been <br />collected. <br />Schultz noted revenues received and expended for permit <br />reviews are not shown on the Treasurer's Report. Erickson <br />stated there is a separate accounting function established <br />for those fees. <br />Schrantz stated it is the board's intention to have Barr <br />Engineering keep track of charges relating to specific <br />projects. <br />Schultz recalled it was the board's and Skallman's theory <br />that he would stop all engineering work on a given project <br />once the engineering charges for said project reached the <br />$500, less a ten per cent administrative fee, received for <br />the permit application. Members concurred. Schultz stated <br />the project money should be earning interest in some account <br />with the interest transferred as revenue for the LRRWMO. <br />Erickson detailed the accounting process, stating said permit <br />revenue is reflected on the reports and is placed in the <br />LRRWMO savings account. Any project funds remaining after <br />deductions will be refunded. Erickson confirmed he will <br />check with Knutson to make sure he is deducting the ten per <br />cent administrative costs from the permit application fees. <br />Weaver recommended the Treasurer's Report reflect, under the <br />interest bearing savings account information, deposits from <br />permits and the current balance. Other members concurred. <br />Erickson indicated he will include it in the next Treasurer's <br />Report as a separate breakdown. Upon discussion of revising <br />the Treasurer's Report as discussed, Jankowski stated the <br />budget figures, however, should not continually change. <br />Schultz reported the Anoka Technical School is working on a <br />project to expand its facility. The school representatives <br />have been informed they need a permit, but have not obtained <br />one, which would include the submission of the $500 permit <br />application fee. Yet the LRRWMO engineer has reportedly been <br />advising them. Schultz was of the opinion the engineer, <br />prior to answering any detailed inquiries, should first ask <br />the individual if they have obtained a permit. Schultz <br />recommended this board instruct its engineer this procedure <br />is necessary. Schrantz concurred. Jankowski felt the <br />engineer should be allowed a certain amount of latitude in <br />this area. However, if he is going to spend a significant <br />amount of time on a project he must insist a permit be <br />obtained and a fee submitted. Jankowski stated it is this <br />board's responsibility to watch the engineering charges. <br />Weaver concurred this board's concerns on this matter should <br />be relayed to its engineer in a reasonable manner. Jankowski <br />added the engineer should be required to provide a telephone <br />