2010-07-22_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Association members toward DNR when they were attempting to do a service for all users of the lake, whether residents or boating in, in terms of managing aquatic vegetation. Mr. Roberts further opined that close collaboration and constructive work was needed by all to help the DNR achieve the goals and intent of their charter. Dan Kelsey Mr. Kelsey noted the sun setting of the grandfather clauses, and expressed curiosity if there was any rationale to distinguish or separate some lakes that may be different. Mr. Kelsey further questioned if there was any available data indicating that treatments had been or were harmful in order to compare different lakes and which weed control treatments had the most significant impact on water quality. Mr. Welling advised that he did not have enough familiarity with sufficient lakes to provide an education opinion; however, he noted that the fifteen percent (15 limit from which Lake Owasso had an exception was sufficient in most cases; and that the new rule had clear provisions for issuance of variances as applicable, with groups able to prepare a plan for review by the DNR in seeking a variance based on their description of specific and unique lake situations. Mr. Welling noted that some people were of the opinion that 15% was not optimum for fish; however, he thought this was inaccurate and that the 15% was practical as well as fairly understandable and conservative, and usually sufficient. Mr. Welling noted that this was substantiated by science when more plants were removed, there was a greater risk of unintended harm, and that this rule seemed simple and easy to apply, and covered lakes having limited amounts of vegetation. Before moving onto other agenda items and as they were leaving the meeting, Chair Ferrington thanked members of the Lake Owasso Association for their attendance and comments; and thanked Mr. Welling for his presentation and availability to respond to questions and provide additional information. OLD BUSINESS: Statements of Economic Interest by members with the Campaign Finance Board; Chair Ferrington provided an update for new members, as well as review for all members, on annual filing requirements, and confirming that information is current. Chair Ferrington advised that, upon his checking out the website earlier this afternoon, the website was still not current with names of board members, as managed by the respective appointing body (City Council) and filed with the City of Roseville. Mr. Schwartz advised that the website will be updated in the near future. Review and Approve 2011 Budget Chair Ferrington noted that this agenda item was actually for authorizing submission of the 2011 Budget to the cities of Shoreview and Roseville, as the budget had been approved by the GLWMO at their last meeting. Since last meeting, Mr. Petersen has provided Board members with an updated draft budget (Version 7.14.10) based on recommendations of members and discussion at the last meeting. In final form, the requested shares for each city is set at $38,863. 6