2012-01-19_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

355 356 Mr. Johnson thanked the GLWMO Board, and expressed his pleasure in working with them and 357 partnering on the various projects. 358 359 Chair Miller thanked Mr. Johnson for partnering with the Board as well. 360 361 Member Von De Linde asked if Mr. Johnson had any suggestions for the GLWMO Board based on past 362 presentations moving forward with future presentations that would help residents be more interested and 363 have a better understanding of the purpose of the BMP projects and what an impact those individual 364 efforts could make on the overall picture. Member Von De Linde questioned if lakeshore property 365 owners really understood the disadvantages of riprap along the shoreline, noting that Lake Owasso's 366 shoreline seemed to have so much already, with residents continuing to install more. 367 368 Mr. Johnson advised that he had really enjoyed working with City of Roseville Engineer Deb Bloom on 369 workshops on water- smart- landscaping alternatives, and while having no specific ideas at this time for 370 future presentations or workshops, expressed his willingness to assist in coordinating something similar. 371 Mr. Johnson noted that the past workshops had always had good turnouts of residents and seemed to 372 spark their interest and provide them with good information. Mr. Johnson noted the value of being able 373 to see the shoreline impacts from various treatments from the lake itself, rather than by driving by, with 374 erosion differentials very obvious when visually seeing the difference in native restoration and riprap. 375 376 Second Public Hearing Timeline 377 Chair Miller advised that no formal public hearing would be needed if the Plan was not moving forward 378 at this time. However, he noted that there may be some value in soliciting citizen input on how the 379 GLWMO sunsets, if that is the end decision of member cites. Chair Miller suggested the Board consider 380 how to engage the public and help citizens of the GLWMO feel comfortable in this resulting new 381 governance 382 383 Mr. Schwartz advised that, in a subsequent phone conversation with Melissa Lewis of BWSR following 384 the earlier meeting with Mr. Miller and Mr. Petersen and himself as well as previous information 385 available, and if member City Councils petitioned to dissolve the GLWMO and trigger the current JPA 386 process, she had clarified that under Minnesota Statute 103.b and d, only the member cites or 387 Ramsey/Washington WMO could petition for changing the watershed boundary; and that there would not 388 be the role for the GLWMO in that process. Mr. Schwartz further noted that Ms. Lewis had clarified that 389 the process would be different for the VLAWMO, in that the cities couldn't petition to become a part of 390 them under current State Statute, but each current member city in VLAWMO would need to agree to 391 renegotiate their JPA's to consider expansion to include the cities of Roseville and Shoreview 392 393 Chair Miller questioned if the GLWMO Board could direct BWSR that the GLWMO Board's preferred 394 alternative would be one or the other. 395 396 Mr. Schwartz advised that the GLWMO Board could do by a letter of preference; however, he didn't 397 think there was any statutory provision requiring BWSR to accept that recommendation. Mr. Schwartz 398 noted that the BWSR would hold a public hearing to receive input from residents of the GLWMO; and 399 clarified that the GLWMO would not be required to hold a public hearing. Mr. Schwartz advised that, 400 pending the decision of both member City Councils, he anticipated that one or both would work closely 401 with their City Attorneys to make sure the statutory process for dissolution of the GLWMO was followed. 402 403 Chair Miller suggested that the GLWMO Board provide notice to applicable lake associations in the 404 GLWMO of the upcoming process and their recourse to make comments on and during the process in the