Minutes from 1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

;EB 15 '93 ~1~12PM CITY OF aNOKp P.3 LRRWMO Special Meeting Minutes February 11, 1993 Page 2 enced working with WM4's tether than watersheds in that it has historically focused on working with local clients. Mr. Lobermsier indicated his firm's experience is in the areas of planning and design, environmental guality, flood control projects, ground water, wetland delineation, and others. Additional support services available to the LRRWMO would be geotechnical and structural engineers and staff, recreational facilities, an architectural group, field surveyors, computer enhanced imagery, etc. Mr. Lobermsier indicated the benefits the LRRWMQ would enjoy by hiring SEH as its consulting engineering firm would be, among others, the location of SEH, which has frequently worked in the Anoka County area, with experience is preparing local plans for Lino Lakes and the Upper Rum River WM07 the LRRWMO would not be subject to travel expenses and the LRRWMO would receive cost effective services through an SEH team effort. Mr. Lobermeisr stated if SEH were chosen as the consulting engineering firm for the LRRWMO, initially, both john Panuska, the engineer to be directly assigned to the LRRWMO, and he would attend the board's meetings at no additional cost far both engineers. Mr. Lobermeisr stated he has reviewed the LRRWMO Water Management Plan and suggested the bcard might consider planing its regulatory activities down to the individual municipalities in a cost saving effort. The board explained the LRRWMO intentionally reviews some projects, such as those over a specific size, municipal projects, and those affecting Class A and 8 waters, because it chooses to retain responsibility in these areas. Jankowski queried how the LRRWMO plan compares with that of other WMO's. tdr. Lobermeisr stated there is not a lot in the LRRWMO plan. He noted that language within the plan contains a lot of "should do's" or "might consider", rather than firmly stating "shall". He further noted an implementation plan is missing, as well as a capital improvement plan or a schedule for getting things done. Mr. Lobermsier stated the LRRWMO's T4ater Management Plan falls short of indicating how it gets implemented or the future direction of the LRRWM~. He further felt it contained conflicting language on regulation. However, he noted there axe also many similarities to the plans of other wM0's, such as the budget. Mr. Lobermsier felt it interesting the LRRWMp requested designation as the Local Goverrunental Unit (LGUj in that there is no goal in the plan for wetlands. Depending on what direction this board wants to take in this regard, he felt