Minutes from 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes • April 18, 1996 Page 2 Jankowski stated his City Administrator has also expressed interest for reimbursement, and since the budget is in good shape, he would support consideration of reimbursement. Knutson reviewed amounts submitted as costs and pointed out the grant is only a matching (50%) grant. Weaver questioned the purpose of the grant and whether it was to be a pass-thru from this agency to member cities, or for the agency and its purposes. He stated he would prefer to reduce member fees as a dividend annually rather than have the grant monies passed through. 7ankowski stated the purpose of the grant was to offset the administration of the WCA, and BWSR established the grant through LGVs. Schultz noted the funds cannot go directly to the cities but must first pass through the County and then to the WMO. Ferguson stated he has no strong feelings but questioned who the LGU actually is. Jankowski asked who is incurring the expense to answer questions regarding the WCA and commented on the length of time he has spent to answer resident's questions. Jankowski stated he would not have a problem if all of these types of questions are referred to Barr Engineering and the WMO incurs the expense. Haas reviewed the amount contained in the Ramsey budget for expenses related to the LRRWMO. • Jankowski noted this would be a way to reimburse to the cities a portion of their costs. Haas noted that even though the LRRWMO is the LGU for three member cities, the member cities still have an obligation to enforce the WCA Jankowski concurred and stated he believes it would be appropriate to return funds to the city that incurs the cost. Weaver asked if it has been determined to what extent each city would be entitled to reimbursement and if there is an accurate method to determine reimbursement. Knutson explained this is an easily identified dollaz amount since the two cities requesting reimbursement did provide a detailed request. These detailed requests were then submitted for a grant reimbursement of $2,250 which was received in March of 1996 (Ramsey, Andover, Timesaver, Barr Engineering and SEH). Weaver asked if the proposal would be to reimbursement 50%. Jankowski indicated this is correct for the member cities who submitted expenses which were reimbursed. Schultz stated he has no objection to this method of reimbursement. Motion was made by Haas, seconded by Ferguson, to approve matching reimbursement requests (50%) from member cities for enforcement of the WCA which have been previously submitted, approved, and received from the ACD. Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS Knutson presented the payment of bills for Timesaver for $190.78, Ban Engineering for $473.75 • (January and February of 1996 with 100% for permit review), and SEH for $2,738.48. Knutson advised the Plan update project balance is $2,265.71, so about 95% of the balance has been paid (if the current request is approved for payment).