Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />May 27, 1993 <br />Page 5 <br />review. The LRRWMO will follow up on the inspection and <br />report back to the full board. Jankowski added the SWCD will <br />do pretty much as it wishes any way. On the site review. he <br />attended, Beduhn did not have much input when he was out <br />there. Perry concurred with Jankowski's suggested procedure. <br />Beduhn agreed it was not the best use of his time being <br />present at those initial violation reviews. The LRRWMO does <br />not have input unless the violators submit a mitigation plan <br />or if we sign off on the order. Beduhn stated he is still <br />uncomfortable with the procedure. <br />Ferguson was of the opinion <br />they should be the ones to <br />determine compliance. Eit <br />agreement with the LRRWMO on <br />who keeps track of when each <br />is up. <br />that if BWSR issues the order, <br />inspect it after restoration to <br />ier that or establish a clear <br />the procedure. Ferguson queried <br />60-day restoration grace period <br />Weaver queried where the board was going to get the $195 to <br />pay for Barr Engineering's involvement in these inspections. <br />Jankowski suggested it be paid out of the general fund or <br />send it over to Andover. <br />Perry stated no one at Andover knew what was going on either. <br />There is no established procedure involved. He did not think <br />Andover should be charged that $195 bill. <br />Weaver stated he was uncomfortable with individual member <br />cities encumbering its resources for this type of expense. <br />Jankowski suggested, as a compromise, that the LRRWMO pay for <br />this bill but that Andover pay for the next. <br />Beduhn stated that the LRRWMO representative on the Technical <br />Advisory Committee does not have to be an engineer, just a <br />technical professional with water resources management <br />experience. Be suggested the board draft a letter to BWSR <br />requesting clarification on the exact procedures. Be con- <br />firmed for Weaver that a City Engineer or LGU representative <br />could represent the LRRWMO rather than the LRRWMO Consulting <br />Engineer represent the organization. <br />Weaver stated if a city representative has the knowledge. and <br />authority to be on the Technical Review Committee when a <br />violation occurs in his/her city, it should be handled in <br />that way. If that method of representation~is all right with <br />the SWCD, then we should go that way; otherwise, the munici- <br />pality in which the violation occurs should provide the <br />financial resources to pay for those expenditures incurred.. <br />