Laserfiche WebLink
<br />distance from shore is required. <br /> <br />8) Some residents asked for clarification (in the joint powers agreement) <br />regarding the City Council authority versus advisory role in setting standards for <br />activities on the surface of the water. (Currently state statute gives this final <br />authority to the Commissioner of Natural Resources.) The Sheriffs water patrol <br />staff has the authority to issue water surface activity permits, but told the residents <br />that if no agreement can be reached between the two cities, no permits and few <br />regulations can be enforced. <br /> <br />Since that meeting, staff has received very few comments (pro or con) but has <br />received calls regarding which ordinances are in effect. Some clarification was <br />provided by Mitch Converse and lake resident Eric Egli. The current Roseville <br />ordinance states that the no-wake setback is 300 feet. The Shoreview ordinance <br />now states that the no-wake setback is 150 feet on Shoreview lakes. However, there <br />is question whether this ordinance currently applies to Lake Owasso, since the lake <br />is in two cities and the cities did not adopt a joint powers agreement stating that <br />they agreed upon a common 150 foot no-wake setback. The city attorney's staff is <br />reviewing which ordinance takes precedent in Shoreview; the old 300 foot no-wake <br />setback or the newly adopted 150 foot no-wake setback. <br /> <br />Alternative Actions: <br /> <br />In all cases, the Council (by city policy) may wish to provide more opportunity for <br />. public comment regarding lake uses and permits that have previously been <br />considered administrative matters. <br /> <br />1) The Council could agree to work with the City of Shoreview City Council to <br />adopt a revised joint powers agreement, making the setbacks consistent, regulating <br />the number and location of slalom courses, providing for enforcement by the <br />Sheriffs Water Patrol and annual environmental quality monitoring and reporting <br />by the Grass Lake Water Management organization. (To date no official comments <br />have been received from the Grass Lake managers regarding this no-wake action.) <br /> <br />2) The Council could decide to retain the 300 foot no-wake setback, but request the <br />city attorney's staff to update the language to more contemporary wording, and also <br />attempt to meet with the Shoreview City. Council over the issues of speed and <br />number of slalom courses. <br /> <br />3 <br />