Minutes from 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes • May 30, 1996 Page 2 Jankowski questioned how you interpret whether the WMO is a participating agency with work relating to the dam -according to this Plan. He noted the LRRWMO is currently listed as a responsible unit. Schultz suggested all are op ssible expenditures which cities should be aware of. Since the LRRWMO will be acting on their budget in August, Jankowski asked if these potential costs (i. e., $13,065 for Rum River Dam Improvement) should be considered in budget decisions. Schultz asked if member Cities will be concerned about how some of these projects will be funded (if it is part of their normal LRRWMO budget). Ferguson noted the costs of $5,000 for a promotional pamphlet and $2,000 for a citizen advisory council, and questioned if these will be implemented. Schultz reviewed Tables 33 and 34 and questioned the cost to implement an interagency agreement with Mn/DOT ($1,000 as shown on Table 32 or $500 as shown on Tables 33 and 34). Discussion ensued regarding costs associated with the dam and whether the LRRWMO is both a responsible unit and funding source. Jankowski stated he is not opposed to the LRRWMO picking • up a portion of the dam costs. Weaver noted the replacement of dam would be principally be funded by the DNR. Ferguson commented that due to the nature of this issue, it will be up to the LRRWMO to determine cost participation for the dam, which could be handled under a separate agreement, if needed. Schultz concurred and noted this Plan is not "cast is stone". Ferguson pointed out this is why terms such as "anticipated cost" and "target date" are used. Also, this can be presented to the DNR and may provide some "weight" to a funding request. Weaver noted that with the first Plan, Coon Rapids and Ramsey did not want any reference included regarding the Rum River Dam but he believes it is important to include recognition that at some point in the future, it will be necessary to repair the dam. Also, it is important to anticipate those costs and determine a movement for funding from the Legislature or DIVR prior to the actual need. He advised the funding for the Coon Rapids Mississippi River Dam reconstruction was anticipated three years prior to the actual approval of funding. and commented on the importance of anticipating this activity to alert those agencies well in advance of the need. Ferguson agreed and commented on the importance of the dam for other area communities. Weaver stated Anoka has hired a consultant to complete the structural analysis of the dam and this information will be available later this year. Jankowski directed a review of each of the implementation items in Table 32. • Consensus was reached to not "reinvent the wheel" or include items which aze the responsibility of individual cities. It was noted the Plan does include some items which aze the responsibility of