1997-05-01_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Presentation categories and responsible task force members are: 1. Introduction - ~"ood, Prok w•eleome. task force charge. members. hours of work. solicit Rose~•ille input. list of panelists, ordinance histon• and proposed change 2. Legal - ~-anous, Prok 3. Safety~Enforcement - :~nktan, Gramer 4. En~•ironmental -Stark ~. Preliminar}• consensus 6. Other issues that pertain -education, permits, signage, enforcement S "-. Public input portion (8. Other issues: onl}• if time or not at all -pumping?) Prepare "Rules" for conducting meeting. LOTF will ask the audience ho~v many intend to speak and then define the allowed comment time. Speakers will pro~•ide their name and address. Input will be solicited from Roseville citizens. To avoid repetition but also to obtain a "census". speakers can briefly indicate their agreement with earlier speakers and then onlt• add new• ideas or concerns. Past panelists will be informed of the 1 29 meeting but are not specifically invited or expected to speak. ~ final decision on inviting "experts" will be made 1 14. Roset•ille's public input on the no-wake issue will be via the public meeting or via a sun•ey included with the cite mailing. which could include a stamped: addressed en~•elopes for surve5• return (SP). Shore~•iew• 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 1.29 was suggested for receipt of input. Ree•iew mailing list. Not done. see "Rules" aboe•e. 3. Discuss preliminan• task force recommendations to Citt• Council. ,~, "preliminar5• consensus" w•as developed in order to clarift• what data-issues to present on lr'29 and pro~•ide a focus for public discussion. Eight of nine members favored adopting a 1~0' ordinance, though several did so with reservations. `iembers' views were: mer -favors 1~0' (Shoreview) ordinance: old one is archaic, new• ordinance could apply to all boats and shores. Fast in~out reduces large wakes at idle. Council is aware of S~t~ residents' concerns re. skiing. safet}•. Request Roseville funding for water patrol. LOTF should support lake watch, encourage safe boating. ?geed for lower speed limit in 5~~,-end is not supported by data on fish, erosion. or weed control. anklan -supports Shoreview ordinance. Permitting and city%publie hearings can control skiing. Tradeoff between weeds and water clarit}'. ~'anous - 1~0' generall}• makes sense, but S~: end is giving something up. Residents 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 better public education at launch and resident education through lake association regarding laws: depth and bottom type, and environmental effects of boating activities. Need to clarify procedures for permitting and for reporting unresolved conflicts complaints. Public opinion and environmental damage are compelling reasons for city not to appro~•e slalom in SR' end. LOTF minutes 1 X8!9 % 2