Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 5, 1983 <br />-2- <br />5. CITY ATTORNEY: <br />A. Watershed'Pl'an Cot'ta�geTGrov'e Ravine - <br />--tiVhttaker — delay in developing a plan may result in standards <br />imposed upon the City that are very different than what the <br />City wants. <br />--Fraser - suggested compiling pertinent information and calling_ <br />a meeting with the affected property owners to get their <br />opinion. <br />M/S/P Fraser/Dunn directing the Administrator to notify all property <br />owners in the proposed Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed of the City's <br />desire and re4sons to develop a_watershed plan for this area and <br />call a meeting with these property owners to develop input for the <br />Council to consider before making a decision on ordering a watershed <br />plan. Carried 5-0. <br />B. Resolution <br />the Formation of a WMO by Joint Powers <br />+ay+.. .+u�.u� y i .uc VVtl0.lJ.0 \]LVVC RQV LIIC — <br />The Council generally did notwant to take action on the <br />Resolution before reviewing the input from the property owners <br />in the area. <br />--Whittaker - the resolution is an agreement to enter into <br />negotiations for a Joint Powers Agreement. It will not bind <br />the City to sign a Joint Powers Agreement later on. Developing <br />a watershed district will still be an option. Also, because(,6f <br />the size of the area involved two districts may be formed - <br />Cottage Grove and Cottage Grove Ravine. <br />M/S/ Fraser/Eder to adopt R-83-26, a Resolution Supporting the <br />l Formation of a Water Management Orqanization by Joint Powers <br />Agreement for the Cottage Grove Ravine. <br />Discussion - <br />--Whittaker -Joint Powers qives the City more control than a <br />Watershed District. <br />--Armstrong - Joint Powers would be in the best interest of the <br />City - wording and construction of the agreement has to be <br />carefully done because of the size of Lake Elmo. <br />Carried 5-0. <br />