1987.11.16 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

143 direction a list of questions was conveyed to the Brown's Creek WMO on November 4, 1987 in an effort to get clarification on numerous items in Section V of the plan. The city received a response from the Washington Soil and Water Conservation District on November 10, 1987 on behalf of BCWMO regarding the questions raised by the city. The city's representative to the BCWMO was present in the audience to answer any questions the city had regarding the preliminary plan. The city administrator noted that although the plan seems to imply that all regulatory authority on water management issues shall exist at the local level that the BCWMO also has review authority beyond the local community, and has the power to revoke the local community's regulatory authority for just cause. Mr. Truax stated that it was his feeling that the authority of Brown's Creek was not as cited by the city administrator, but intended to be more in an advisory capacity than an agency with regulatory authority. He pointed out that city's will have total authority over local waters while BCWMO will retain regulatory over certain waters of district significance. The city administrator inquired as to whether or not Brown's Creek had taxing authority for capital improvements and the maintenance of capital improvements. Mr. Truax responded in the affirmative. Mr. Huber stated that if the St. Croix River is beyond the scope and authority of BCWMO then the reference to district -wide assessment for regional waters should be eliminated from the plan. The city administrator requested clarification on plan review and progress reports required in the BCWMO plan. The city administrator also inquired as to how adding Washington Soil and Water Conservation District review to the process will expedite the process. Adding additional steps and new review agencies to the process should extend the process not shorten it. Mr. Huber also stated that the plan should be clear with regard to who has regulatory authority over what waters. The plan seems to apply that BCWII10 has the authority to make capital improvements and maintenance of same on district waters, but it doesn't clearly speak to project review and regulatory authority for development within a certain distance of district waters. Mr. Huber also stated that he felt it important that BCWMO identify the district waters specifically so that local agencies will know exactly when to refer projects to the BCWMO for their review. He stated that these waters should be identified before final plan approval. Mr. Truax acknowledged the points raised by city staff and suggested that the city, himself, and Mr. Doug Thomas meet for clarification on some of these questions and direction for possible amendments to the plan. The city administrator inquired as to whether or not BCWMO has approved the plan in question. Mr. Truax responded in the negative. The City Council expressed their concern regarding the items raised by the city staff and directed Mr. Truax and the city administrator to meet with the Soil and Water Conservation District, as well as BCWMO, to express the city's concerns and make the necessary changes in the plan to clarify these items. The city attorney commented that it does appear that the authority of the BCWMO identified in the plan goes beyond the scope of the Joint Powers Agreement entered into by the municipalities participating in the formation of this organization. Mayor Atkinson stated that it is important that cities keep regulatory authority at the local level, and that the city did not intend to create an organization that had authority to revokes the city's regulatory powers and order the cities to comply with regulations established by the BCWMO. Mayor Atkinson stated that once amendments are made to the plan as discussed this evening, this plan should be brought back to the City Council for further review.