Laserfiche WebLink
<br />work plans, including a "kick-off' meeting with staff, complete review of existing data, an open <br />house style meeting for the public, field work, updating the MLCCS data (from field work, aerial <br />photography and Wetland Study data), ordinance review, draft report and presentation to the <br />EPB, and final report and presentation to City CounciL. While similar in work plans, Bonestroo's <br />proposal provided greater detail concerning the outlined tasks as well as the necessary steps to <br />complete each. Both proposals indicate that the final report would be completed and submitted <br />to the City by the end of August, which is important as it will enable the City to utilize this <br />information during the Comprehensive Plan update that is scheduled for completion in 2008. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated staff presented both proposals to the EPB during a <br />special meeting on March 15,2007. While the Board considered both proposals to be adequate, <br />it was clear that several points stood out in the Bonestroo proposal. First, the Board noted that <br />Bonestroo's proposal was more thorough and detailed and left no uncertainties as far as <br />deliverables. Additionally, the Bonestroo proposal dedicates more time to "on the ground" field <br />work, which the Board believes is a critical component of this project. Finally, and maybe most <br />important to the EPB, awarding the contract to Bonestroo for the NRI would create a synergy <br />between this project and the Comprehensive Plan update. The EPB believes very strongly that <br />the NRI and Comprehensive Plan update is an important relationship and that it warrants the <br />additional cost. The EPB recommends that the City enter into a contract with Bonestroo to <br />complete a Natural Resources Inventory for an amount not to exceed $34,646.00 <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated neither himself nor Councilmember Dehen were here in October <br />when this was recommended. He requested an explanation of the net benefit to Ramsey in <br />spending $35,000 to define the Natural Resources Inventory, and information on what type of <br />allowance is in place for wetlands that may ultimately change. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson replied part of the recommendation of the EPB with the <br />Natural Resources Inventory was that it includes periodic updating of the report, which would <br />lend itself to wetland changes over time. As far as the benefit to the City of Ramsey, there are <br />many positives from this. First and foremost, the City can take a more proactive approach to its <br />natural resources. Rather than reacting to development proposals they can have the high priority <br />areas identified and know what battles to fight as to what areas merit extreme protection and <br />what might not be so critical to preserve. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated seated in the audience is a person in the community that brought up <br />the fact in a previous meeting that due to the buffer ordinance he could not do anything with his <br />property that was designated wetland, and that with the City restricting it without any purchase, <br />the property owner has a net loss in the value of their property. Councilmember Look expressed <br />concern regarding the possible negative impact to landowners if the City were to enforce this <br />Natural Resources Inventory. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated this is an inventory, not a policy. The issue is that they cannot <br />make the policy or the choices about what should be preserved when they do not have the <br />information. This has come up repeatedly as plats. are reviewed of different developments. A lot <br />is heard from neighbors about preserving trees or wetlands, but they currently do not have any <br />information regarding the quality of the City's natural resources. This inventory will provide the <br /> <br />City Council I March 27, 2007 <br />Page 7 or 19 <br />