My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017.12.18 CC Packet
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Agenda/Packets
>
2017 CC Packets
>
2017.12.18 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/14/2017 3:45:54 PM
Creation date
12/14/2017 3:37:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
12/18/2017
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
129
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
METROPOLITAN o <br />LUAC-MAWSAC Joint Workshop: November 6, 2017 <br />QUESTION 1: What opportunities and/or obstacles are there for working together? o Case study: Hiawatha golf course/Lake Nokomis (where there is an intersection of land use and <br />Working togetherwater resource planning) <br />• Rural <br />• Politics 0 Agricultural <br />• There are topics of overlap to focus on (not contentious) 0 Water for growth (context: White Bear Lake) <br />• Focus messaging on unifying topics — what are key challenges? 0 Land use practices — new communities have access to best management practices that old communities did <br />• Competition for money — work together on creative solutions not! <br />• What does the process for working together look like? 0 Density requirements versus water impacts <br />• What does the path look like for MAWSAC and LUAC working together — parallel paths? Shared path? 0 Limited authority <br />• Stormwater — land use and water (example: Ford Plant plan) 0 Existing regulations/local ordinances <br />• Stakeholder overlap! 0 TCAAP <br />• Partners: <br />o Funding, equity <br />o Bring "Greater MSP" in the room 4 business <br />o AWWA, Planning Association <br />o Cities — utilities, councils (Trust in housing?) <br />o Construction <br />Context <br />• City councils look at water rates as a tax <br />• Water consumption <br />o Chloride <br />o City versus private wells <br />Opportunities <br />• New committee appointments have broad experience (elected, business owners, utility, etc.) <br />• Better allocation of money to incentivize land use, water supply planning activities <br />• Water conservation stewardship ethic <br />• Incentives (not just money) <br />• Personal expertise in both committees (marching band!) <br />Incentives/Funding <br />• Example: Minneapolis -St. Paul interconnections to support health, economy <br />• State -level resources for capital investments in water aren't in the metro area <br />• More directed grants for comprehensive planning where water issues exist <br />Goals <br />• What is the goal for water? At what level — local, legislative? <br />• Uncertainty: why is Met Council doing water supply planning? <br />• Consider upstream and downstream effects on aquifers, rivers <br />• Address water supply, wastewater, rivers/lakes 4 Metro Water <br />Obstacles <br />• Expectation of growth; know constraints <br />Different Plans <br />• Developing communities — balance density and green space; have long-term vision for property values and <br />water resource protection; allow development by being creative addressing constraints <br />• Developed communities — respect existing terrain; how to deal with old infrastructure? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.