My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes from 1996
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
LRRWMO
>
Minutes
>
Minutes from 1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2025 1:31:49 PM
Creation date
5/10/2010 11:48:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Document Title
Lower Rum River Water Management Organization
Document Date
12/19/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />• January 25, 1996 <br />Page 5 ~ ' <br />Ferguson stated he believes the time has come to open the discussion. It was noted that the <br />political aspect will be different than the engineering issues. Haas agreed and suggested <br />Anoka schedule a joint meeting and invite other entities to participate in the discussion. <br />Lobermeier asked if there have been any discussions about DNR ownership of the dam. <br />Schultz stated there have been none and, in fact, the DNR would prefer to see the dam <br />removed. Lobermeier commented on the change in ownership of the Coon Rapids <br />Mississippi dam to Hennepin County Pazks which, perhaps, is a precedent. <br />Consensus was reached to indicate in the Plan that the issues and ownership of the dam <br />will need to be worked out but not include mention of rnsts or liability. <br />The LRRWMO continued their review of the action plan. Lobermeier asked if the <br />threshold should be reduced to one acre and questioned the need to establish better turf and <br />erosion control with smaller developments. <br />Haas stated the LRRWMO did discuss whether LRRWMO permits and review should be <br />required of all plats. Schultz stated this is probably a "case by case" consideration since <br />• developments that drains to established, created, ponding probably do not need LRRWMO <br />review. <br />Ferguson agreed with the need to clarify the permitting process regarding what does and <br />does not need LRRWMO review. <br />Lobermeier asked if the actual revision can occur outside of the Plan update. Schultz stated <br />he believes it can work as it is but you need to rely on the integrity of the members. <br />Ferguson stated the-permitting process-will probably be-improved on continually so- there <br />is probably no need to "lock" it into the actual Plan. Lobermeier noted the forms will be <br />included in the appendix section and can easily be updated. LRRWMO agreed. <br />Lobermeier stated he will include some costs in the implementation process for LRRWMO <br />member review, but this data will not be included in the Plan reviewed at the open house. <br />Ferguson suggested a note "figures to be added" be included in the Plan. He also suggested <br />that some of the figures be reduced significantly. <br />Lobermeier stated he will provide three Plans to each City, one for review at the City Hall, <br />one for review at their local Ibrary, and one for the LRRWMO member. The <br />Administrative Secretary requested a file copy plus an extra one for public review at the <br />informational meeting. <br />• Lobermeier questioned the agenda format for the open house meeting.. Consensus was <br />reached to keep the format as casual as possible to enrnurage public input. Lobermeier <br />stated he will prepare an outline and meeting format as well as full-sized layouts. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.