2014.10.06 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for October 6, 2014 Page 5 of 8 Council had directed staff to come back with an estimate for being the LGU. Bryan provide background starting in 2004 when the Memorandum of Understanding was adopted. The MOA gave the City authority to approve applications relating to stormwater management, erosion control, floodplains, wetlands, and shorelands. Prior to this, review on applications was being done by the City and the Rice Creek Watershed District. This duplication caused conflicting comments, which added to time delays and cost. When the City took over as the sole permitting authority, there was not a lot of additional cost involved since the City was already doing their own review. City adopted the RCWD policies and performed both reviews simultaneously. The City also permits its own street reconstruction projects, and the RCWD performs audits and has found the City does a good job. In 2004, staff had projected the costs to be near zero because the City receives escrow and permit fees on projects. Net expenses actually run about $3,500 mostly due to violations of the Wetland Conservation Act. Bryan talked about how the RCWD does retain some activities such as maintaining bridges, culverts, ditches, and public waters as well as watershed planning, public education, and management of the drainage system. Recent projects where the RCWD spent money are the Oneka Ridge Golf Course, individual rain gardens, sediment removal project in Victor Gardens, sanitary sewer in Oakshore Park, JD2 maintenance, and there are current discussion on the Bald Eagle Lake Dam project. He summarized by saying the program is working well. The City does not incur significant expense though there is less cost to RCWD. Staff was not recommending any changes with the existing program. Council Member Petryk stated that she felt the City being the LGU served the citizens well, but the agreement was lopsided and should be revisited. Haas said there needs to be serious discussions about the district's roles and responsibilities. He questioned whether Hugo was paying to subsidize other communities. Haas also talked about government created unfunded mandates, i.e. code enforcement. If we are enforcing the RCWD Act, it is an unfunded mandate. He also said the dam is their responsibility and they are multijurisdictional designed to serve this need. He agreed Hugo should partner with them but should not take the responsibility off their shoulders. Haas said that money needs to come back into Hugo to do some projects. RCWD should be providing funds and leadership to get things done. Klein questioned what percent of the RCWD population is Hugo compared to the entire district. He stated disappointed in RCWD for not stepping up and taking a lead role in fixing the Bald Eagle Dam. He also suggested the City take initiative in getting the RCWD to help fund some of the water conservation projects. Weidt said that a role of the RCWD was to help other jurisdictions work together to fund water control. Hugo needs to see how much it is paying compared to the the amount of land we have. Hugo needs to look at options to assess the amount of funding compared to other cities to ensure Hugo is paying their equal share. John Waller, 14010 Homestead Avenue, said he agrees with what Council is saying. He stated that he will be talking to other cities about the accountability of watershed money.