2012-02-16_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 have a better understanding of the purpose of the BMP projects and what an impact those individual efforts could make on the overall picture. Member Von De Linde questioned if lakeshore property owners really understood the disadvantages of riprap along the shoreline, noting that Lake Owasso's shoreline seemed to have so much already, with residents continuing to install more. Mr. Johnson advised that he had really enjoyed working with City of Roseville Engineer Deb Bloom on workshops on water- smart- landscaping alternatives, and while having no specific ideas at this time for future presentations or workshops, expressed his willingness to assist in coordinating something similar. Mr. Johnson noted that the past workshops had always had good turnouts of reside and seemed to spark their interest and provide them with good information. Mr. Johnson noted the u of being able to see the shoreline impacts from various treatments from the lake itself, rather by driving by, with erosion differentials very obvious when visually seeing the difference in native on and riprap. Second Public Hearing Timeline Chair Miller advised that no formal public hearing would be needed i e an was not g forward at this time. However, he noted that there may be some value i o ici ing citizen in on how the GLWMO sunsets, if that is the end decision of member cites. C Mil suggested the Board consider how to engage the public and help citizens of the GLW eel co ble in this resulting new governance Mr. Schwartz advised that, in a subsequent phone conversation the earlier meeting with Mr. Miller and Mr. Petersen and k available, and if member City Councils petition] process, she had clarified that under Minnes Ramsey/Washington WMO could petition for ch; be the role for the GLWMO in that process. Mr. the process would be different for the VLAWM( them under current State Statute, but each curre renegotiate their JPA's to Chair Miller questioned ' e GL alternative would be o tld Mr. Schwartz to ve the of BWSR following [sell ll as previous information O GXL and trigger the current JPA t d d, only the member cites or ed boundary; and that there would not noted that Ms. Lewis had clarified that the cities couldn't petition to become a part of er city in VLAWMO would need to agree to cities of Roseville and Shoreview direct BWSR that the GLWMO Board's preferred Board could do by a letter of preference; however, he didn't think there w ry pro n requiring BWSR to accept that recommendation. Mr. Schwartz noted that WSR hol public hearing to receive input from residents of the GLWMO; and clarifie at the GLW ould not be required to hold a public hearing. Mr. Schwartz advised that, pend' e decision of member City Councils, he anticipated that one or both would work closely wi Attorney o make sure the statutory process for dissolution of the GLWMO was followed. Chair Mille ed that the GLWMO Board provide notice to applicable lake associations in the GLWMO of th oming process and their recourse to make comments on and during the process in the most effectiv ay, including through contact with the GLWMO Chair or Mr. Petersen on ways they could possibly influence the process. Chair Miller advised that, with Board member approval, he would like to write a position statement of the GLWMO Board on its preference for the choice of new governance organization, if that preference was a unanimous one. Member Von De Linde noted that this could and should be a primary discussion for the February meeting.