Minutes from 1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes July 15, 1993 Page 7 Weaver went on to express concern about other sections of the proposed agreement: Page 16 and 17, Subdivision 3: Pearson explained the intent of this section is to prevent property owners from using undeveloped property as storage areas unless the appropriate zoning controls are in place. Schultz noted language in this portion of the agreement indicating the commission "shall" determine and prepare certaip documents providing specific information on outlet capacity. He stated these four LRRWMO cities have extremely small engineering.sta£fs. Beduhn confirmed that the existing LRRWMO Water Management Plan left the water quality issue and rate up to the individual cities. He noted the rules state the LRRWMO plan update must contain these details. Schultz stated he would prefer this agreement language state that this board "may" not "shall" do certain things. Pearson stated this board has no choice but to issue certain requirements if there are no local plans in existence. Otherwise, the county will set up a watershed district; and the county will levy the tax. "Shall" means this board has the responsibility to do it. Page 22, Subdivision 10: Weaver stated this Land Acquisition portion of the agreement will be costly. Pearson reiterated this agreement will not cost this board anything. It just structures how you handle the actions yourselves. It is the mandates from the state or federal government which may cost you. Pearson went on to explain that as for the language in the agreement addressing the condemnation of lands, this board can do that already. This power has been accessible since 1968 but never used. Page 23, second paragraph: Weaver requested an explanation of said paragraph, second sentence, addressing equalizing costs of land throughout the watershed. Pearson indicated he would be willing to take that language out. Schultz stated in twenty-five years it is conceivable the Anoka Dam may need to be replaced. He queried whether those costs involved should be borne strictly by the City of Anoka. He predicted the City of Anoka may probably look at involve- ment from the watershed district. Weaver stated that start- ing on page 28, Subdivision 5, the agreement addresses just such a situation. Specifically, page 29 addresses the watershed's procedure when agreeing on capital projects and the potential taxation of all taxable properties in the watershed for said project. Pearson indicated this language is merely verbalizing what is already in state laws. He