Minutes from 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes June 22, 1994 Page 4 (indicating each member shall have one vote) and VII Finances (regazding negotiation of costs for capital improvements). Jankowski pointed out that even though it is implied that each member shall have one vote in the new JPA, it is not specifically stated. It was noted that this reference was included in the previous JPA. Jankowski reviewed the current formula for calculating capital costs based on 50% of tax capacity and 50% on area and Ramsey's proposed amendment which would not include sub- watershed azeas that are clearly not benefitting by the project. He explained they found some possible scenarios that could cause problems, such as a capital improvement project on the Rum River since Ramsey has a considerable portion of their city and assessed evaluation that does not drain into the Rum River. It was noted that this clause is only effective if a negotiated amount is not arrived at by the members. Weaver questioned whether this proposed amendment will add a dimension of uncertainty that will be expensive since an engineer will have to be hired in some cases to make the determination of benefitting area. He indicated he understands the present system is uncomfortable for Ramsey but questioned whether the proposed amendment is the answer to the concerns they have expressed. Jankowski explained that while the LRRWMO believes everyone will act in good faith, lawyers look at it differently. He pointed out that engineers will have to be hired anyway for capital improvement projects so it may not be an added cost. Haas noted that most of the property along the Rum River is privately owned so with some projects the property owner would be responsible for costs, not the LRRWMO. Jankowski agreed the JPA indicates they don't anticipate many capital improvement projects; however, State statute indicates the LRRWIVIO must have the authority to be able to take over a capital improvement if the project is required to achieve the goals of the Plan. Schultz questioned costs should the Rum River dam wash out. He pointed out that in this case all of Anoka County benefits, not just residents along the Rum River. Jankowski stated he feels a negotiated amount will be arrived at in most cases but determination of benefiting factors should be spelled out. Haas pointed out that because of the Scenic River Ordinance rules, the DNR would be involved with a dam washout. He suggested a better example would be a river flow monitoring station. Weaver reported that when he attended the Ramsey Council meeting to present the JPA, one of the members was concerned about how capital improvement projects would be