1997-01-23_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Presentation categories and responsible task force members are: 1. Introduction -Food, Prok welcome. task force charge. members. hours of work. solicit Rose~•ille input. list of panelists, ordinance history and proposed change 2. Legal - ~'anous, Prok 3. Safetv~Enforcement - Anklan, Gramer 4. En~•ironmental -Stark S. Preliminan~ consensus 6. Other issues that pertain -education. permits. signage, enforcement $ 7. Public input portion. (8. Other issues; only if time or not at all -pumping?) Prepare "Rules" for conducting meeting_ LOTF will ask the audience how many intend to speak and then define the allowed comment time. Speakers will provide their name and address. Input «•ill be solicited. from Rose~~ille citizens. To a~•oid repetition but also to obtain a "census". speakers can brieflt• indicate their agreement with earlier speakers and then only add neiv ideas or concerns. Past panelists will be informed of the 1 29 meeting but are not specificallt• incited or expected to speak. A final decision on inviting "experts" will be made 1 14. Roseville's public input on the no-wake issue ~ti•ill be c•ia the public meeting or via a sun~ey included with the cite mailing, which. could include a stamped; addressed envelopes for survey return (SP). Shoreview previously polled residents regarding a no-wake buffer zone size for skiers. Task force members disagreed whether the public meeting should be broadcast live on cable (it will be videotaped). A final date of L29 was suggested for receipt of input. Review mailing list. Not done, see "Rules" aboc•e. 3. Discuss preliminary task force recommendations to Citt• Council. A "preliminary consensus" was developed in order to clarify what data issues to present on lr'29 and provide a focus for public discussion. Eight of nine members fa~•ored adopting a 1~0' ordinance; though several did so with reser~•ations. Members' ~•iews were: Gramer -favors 1~0' (Shoreview) ordinance: old one is archaic, new ordinance could apply to all boats and shores. Fast iniout reduces large wakes at idle. Council is aware of SG'T' residents' concerns re. skiing; safety. Request Rose~•ille funding for water patrol. LOTF should support lake watch; encourage safe boating. Need for lower speed limit in S~,G' end is not supported by data on fish; erosion. or weed control. Anklan-supports Shoreview ordinance. Permitting and cityipublic hearings can control skiing. Tradeoff between weeds and water clarity. ~'anous - 1~0' generally makes sense. but SR- end is giving something up. Rcsidents need input to council re courses and jumps. Still has legal questions. Expects no change in boat traffic. Egli - 1~0' with no additional restrictions is the only possibility. Need betterpublic education at launch and resident education through lake association regarding laws, depth and bottom type; and environmental effects of boating actit•ities. Need to clarify procedures for permitting and for reporting unresolved conflicts-complaints. Public opinion and environmental. damage are compelling reasons for city not to approve slalom in SGS' end. LOTF minutes 1%Si97 ~