Laserfiche WebLink
LRRWMO Meeting Minutes <br />October 17, 2024 Page 5 <br />2024 Third Quarter Report <br />Wozney presented the Year 2024 Third Quarter Report from ACD. <br />Musgrove asked if there was an update on the streambank stabilization. Nelson stated that they <br />are awaiting a 401 certificate before proceeding. <br />OLD BUSINESS <br />JPA Update <br />Wozney reviewed the comments received from Ramsey and Andover. <br />Westby provided a summary of the comments from the City of Ramsey staff and City Council. <br />Wozney stated that the grammatical changes would be easy to address and noted that she would <br />like the LRRWMO Attorney to review some of the comments, but noted that they seem reasonable. <br />Musgrove agreed that the LRRWMO Attorney could provide clarification on those items. <br />Weaver stated that in the comments from the cities, member is capitalized and asked if that is <br />accurate. Musgrove confirmed that is correct. <br />Nelson referenced page 12, number nine, related to the dam, and stated he would like that removed <br />as the City of Anoka has sole authority and the LRRWMO does not control the dam. He asked <br />that the item be removed or specify that the Anoka dam is excluded. He noted that the LRRWMO <br />passed a resolution recognizing that authority in 2016. Musgrove stated that perhaps the <br />LRRWMO Attorney can provide clarification on the language that would be better to use. <br />Weaver left the meeting. <br />Nelson summarized the remaining comments that he had, noting that he can follow up with his <br />comments in an email to Wozney. <br />Berkowitz commented that there are a lot of strong words such as `order' and `shall,' noting that <br />while that is good, there should also be an appeal section. He summarized the additional comments <br />from Andover. <br />Musgrove commented that perhaps the LRRWMO Attorney can clarify whether the LRRWMO <br />would have the power to condemn property, or whether that language should be removed. She did <br />agree that there should be a process for appeal. <br />Motion was made by Holthus, seconded by Musgrove, to direct staff to submit the comments <br />related to the JPA from the cities to the LRRWMO Attorney for review. Vote: 2 ayes, 0 <br />nays. Motion carried. <br />It was noted that this item would return to the LRRWMO at the November meeting and would <br />then go forward to the member city councils in order for the LRRWMO to consider this for <br />adoption at its December meeting. Wozney stated that the resolution could be approved by <br />member cities on their consent agendas if that is desired by the city. <br />