My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/28/2003 Environmental Board Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Environmental Board
>
Minutes
>
2003
>
05/28/2003 Environmental Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2022 10:40:25 AM
Creation date
6/6/2014 9:34:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Environmental Board
Env Bd Document Type
Env Bd Minutes
Meeting Date
05/28/2003
Env Bd Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.