Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 <br />5APPROVED MINUTES <br />City would receive credit for the things it was already doing. He gave the <br />example of cutting maintenance funds. <br />Chair Kukonen noted maintenance funds was the biggest concern in terms <br />of capital. Grochala responded most were being done. In 1993-1994 the <br />Surface Water Management Fee was established to pay for maintenance. <br />Public Works was now tracking street sweeping as stormwater <br />maintenance instead of general fund. There was the question if the City <br />was doing it equitably with the eventual slowdown of growth. There arose <br />a need for the sewer system to be mapped on GIS, which had been <br />completed. <br />O’Dea inquired about the possibility of pooling resources or assets with <br />other cities. Mr. Jacques answered the goals were attainable, because the <br />Watershed Districts were the umbrella organization to link the cities. <br />Donlin questioned if Hugo managing their own stormwater and wetland <br />programs would pose problems. Mr. Jacques responded that Hugo would <br />have to conform to Rice Creek Watershed District and legislative acts. <br />Grochala stated at times there were conflicts with the Watershed District. <br />In many areas, there were more restrictive requirements at the City level. <br />Chair Kukonen inquired about enforcing buffers. Grochala answered the <br />Shoreland Ordinance had buffers and setbacks. It was possible there was <br />now a need for a stormwater ordinance. <br />Mr. Jacques stated there was a copy of the action items for erosion <br />control. Grochala added the rest was a resource document. <br />Chair Kukonen clarified that comments were wanted and should be put on <br />the agenda for the next meeting, in addition to implementation to Phase II <br />permitting authority. Mr. Jacques admitted there was some overlap, but <br />he tried to pull it all together in one document. <br />Chair Kukonen inquired about the lakes on the list in the program, but not <br />implemented. Mr. Jacques stated it was an expanded list, but would be <br />used to enforce the worst of the worst. It would be used as a diagnostic <br />and repair item. <br />Chair Kukonen questioned the reason for not more lakes delisted. Mr. <br />Jacques answered there had to be a reason. Clearwater Creek and <br />Hardwood Creek were not challenged, but the City had little influence on <br />them because Lino Lakes was at the bottom of the stream. The City had <br />only a small influence on Bald Eagle Lake. Peltier was the only lake left <br />unchallenged on the list.