Minutes from 1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LRRWMO Meeting Minutes March 21, 1996 • Page 4 Motion was made by Weaver, seconded by Ferguson, to authorize payment to Timesaver for $325.35, SEH for $5,696.93, T.C. Field for $125 and ABC Newspaper for $16.24. Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. REVIEW PLAN UPDATE -IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM -SEH Weaver read the goal stated in Table 28, on page 110, ("The WMO shall regulate land development activities to m;nimi~e any and all impacts to the natural resources of the watershed.") and questioned if this will result in a lazge expenditure and becoming more involved in the community than is desired. He expressed concern that this goal, perhaps, will result in regulation of land development and exceed the goal and mission established by member cities. Mark Lobermeier, SEH, explained the goal is an attempt to define how the LRRWMO currently operates but not to expand their scope. Consensus was reached that the current language is too all-encompassing and needs to better clarify which projects should be reviewed by the LRRWMO and which do not require review. Weaver noted that costs have been identified, some of which aze "big ticket" costs that he does not • want the LRRWMO to be responsible for or to create an expectation for. Lobermeier explained that those costs are not necessarily responsibilities of the LRRWMO but, rather, from other agencies. Weaver.reviewed Table 3, page 105, relating to costs and. time schedule of the dam. Schultz further reviewed the appendix section which included costs and time schedules. Lobermeier explained how he amved at these cost estimates including a 75%/25% cost share with the DNR. Schultz advised that the inspection report will better define work that is needed, after which Anoka will approach the Legislature for funding. Because of the costs involved, Weaver asked if the LRRWMO review should include support review by the Council. All members concurred with this suggestion to obtain member City Council review and approval Lobermeier suggested language be included to clarify these figures are for budgeting purposes only. Ferguson noted the rules require the inclusion of dollar figures. Schultz added that a document including estimates may be beneficial when applying for grant funds. Lobermeier concurred. Consensus was reached that a capital improvement plan is simply a guide which is subject to change and revision, and contains only estimated time schedules. Lobermeier stated this may be too detailed and asked how to m;n;mi~e. the perception of commitment. • Jankowski suggested that a notation be included in the narrative portion which indicates it will be revisited annually.