Minutes from 1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes May 20, 1992 Page 7 At the request of Schultz, Mr. Fischer reported how Anoka County is treated in other watersheds, explaining that most watersheds have a project review application which is filled out, with the actual permit applied for by the contractor. Schrantz pointed out the different budgets with which other watersheds have to work. Schrantz felt the question is should the LRRWMO treat the county the same as it treats its own member cities, who currently have to get a permit for projects affecting Class A and B waters. Schultz felt the two entities should be treated equally. Weaver felt the LRRWMO attorney should be asked to advise the board on this issue; what is our statutory obligations. He felt the county, not a contractor, should be required to assume the responsibility of obtaining the proper permits. Schrantz stated as the Local Governmental Unit during the interim wetland regulations period, we must go through the permitting process. Mr. Fischer stated he would go ahead and submit an application to the LRRWMO, along with the $500 fee, for this project review, noting that he has already sent this project to Barr Engineering. Schrantz concurred with that procedure in that he felt it only right to treat the county the same way the LRRWMO member cities treat themselves. Mr. Fischer went on to request that the board look into the possibility of handling the county projects, particularly maintenance projects, as an exemption if there is minimum impact to wetlands. Schrantz indicated perhaps the LRRWMO could establish a minimum review policy, but cautioned that the county be aware of the potential for costs. Erickson queried whether the LRRWMO can allow an accumulative banking process. He further queried of Mr. Fischer whether the county has sufficient right -of -way for the project. Mr. Fischer indicated the county is buying an easement in order to do this construction; the county is not buying any addi- tional right -of -way for mitigation. Schrantz noted this is a county ditch; the LRRWMO just manages the water than runs in it. He felt the county has a right to some right -of -way according to law. Schrantz reviewed how the LRRWMO would handle these projects: Just as is required of member cities, an application and $500 permit fee will be submitted to the LRRWMO through the respective member city, the money and project plans and specifications will be sent to the LRRWMO Deputy Treasurer who will assign a number to the application, and the project information will be sent to our Consulting Engineer who will