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 />