Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/98 MINUTES OF THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE August 19, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER The Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) was called to order by Chairman Kearney on Wednesday, August 19, 1998 at 6:35 p.m. Members present: Marianne Breitbach, Kate Haggerty, Tom Kearney, Doug Larson, Roger Soderstrom, Paul Trapp and Rick Warner. Others present: Mayor Wes Mader; Councilmembers Tom Kedrowski, Jim Petersen, Dave Wuellner, and Pete Schenck; City Manager Frank Boyles, Water Resources Coordinator Lani Leichty, Mike and Donna Mankowski, Larry Schulze, Craig Gontarek, Dale Brady, Marv Mersch and Bob Miller. Other Prior Lake citizens were present in the audience. II. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES The first item on the agenda was to approve the minutes of the meeting for July 15, 1998. MOTION BY HAGGERTY, SECONDED BY TRAPP TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF JUL Y 15, 1998. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSL Y. III. JOINT LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE/CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. DISCUSS LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE/CITY COUNCIL EXPECTATIONS. Meeting was turned over to Boyles by Chair Kearney. Boyles asked what expectations the Lake Advisory Committee and Council had of staff. Larson: Would like to see the Water Resources Coordinator have additional time to research topics, additional resources to do the job properly and have access to the internet. Soderstrom: There needs to be a clear picture and true issues of what to report on. He was confused as to what direction the LAC was to go. He questioned what the LAC was being asked to advise on. -- Boyles: Said that he and Leichty should review the City Council minutes to hear what was actually being asked by Council when directives are given. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Kearney: There is a lack of communication between the two committees. Disappointed that the issues weren't discussed or brought up with the Council member who was there at the LAC meeting. Tliere was a breakdown in communication. Mader: Public input would have been sought. Kearney: The LAC wasn't invited to the Council meeting, but the DNR and Watershed were, though the DNR chose not to attend. The Council liaison to the LAC should be used by the LAC. Warner: If there was open communication between the two groups it would solve a lot of the problems. Trapp: Agreed with Warner that communication between the two groups needed to be improved. He was suprised to see the lead article in the Prior Lake American about the no-wake zone and the action to be taken. He questioned whether people really know the difference between the ordinary high water level (OHWL) and the no-wake zone elevation. Mader: The television media reported false rumors about the City shutting down the lake which created confusion and clouded the real issue. Soderstrom: There were eight people on the LAC that weren't consulted on the no-wake issue, and it created an embarrassment for the community. He would like to see more consideration given to the LAC's opinion on issues. Mader: The LAC's minutes weren't clear as to what the motion intended. Larson: The process didn't work. The LAC was to study the no-wake issue and saw it as a multi-faceted issue. A survey was intended to be done to get public opinion. He thought that the LAC was going to take the point lead on the issue, whether it was popular or not. There needs to be a clear understanding of what the process is to be. Mader: The LAC minutes look as though no action was to be taken on the no- wake issue. Schenck: He saw the survey in the Council packet and thought that the process was completed. Boyles: The no-wake issue was first given to the LAC as a Council directive. The July 9, 1998 memorandum was intended to clarify the topic, but Council was anxious to move on the issue. Kedrowski: Apologized for not being able to attend all of the LAC meetings as the Council liaison to the LAC. Recently he has had conflicts with other meetings. Haggerty: Thought it would be a good idea if Council and LAC got together regularly to see if Council agreed with the LAC's yearly Goals and Objectives. Wuellner: Interested in solving the overall problem. Prior Lake is a growing community and the water problem will continue to get worse with development. The lake may reach a point where it is always above 904. There needs to be a closer working relationship with staff, LAC and the Watershed. Maybe the mathematical model needs to be changed. He sees the damage to the lakeshore and wants overall solutions to be looked at. While serving on the Planning Commission he was frustrated that the committee's opinions weren't conveyed on to Council as they had intended. Schenck: Expects the citizen advisory committees to be a brain trust for Council. Decisions shouldn't be influenced by Council members. LAC's task is to present information to Council in such a way as to change his opinion if he differs before the data/info is presented. He respects the LAC's work and reports that they do. Peterson: Felt like he let the LAC down by not passing the information on to Council and apologized to the LAC. Kedrowski: Apologized for not being at the recent LAC meetings. Said that there's more to the issue than just boat impacts on the lake, which means money may have to be spent, including lake enforcement. There is more to this issue than raising or lowering the lake level. It's more comprehensive, we have a lot of control since the lake is entirely in the City limits. A number of things need to be done that aren't being done now. It's a long term and on- going issue. Mader: Agreed with Kedrowski that the lake has received a lot of lip service. Mentioned Lake Tahoe and that the Federal Government is spending $300 million to clean it up. Prior Lake is one of the most populated lakes in the state for boats per acre. Feels like it's one of least regulated lakes in the state. Is concerned about safety on the lake, pollution and the erosion that is occurring on the lake. Has talked to the DNR about erosion on the lake. Wants to see a safer lake and better water quality. Lowering the no-wake 6 inches to reduce erosion would be a small step. There needs to be more aggressive action taken to ensure a safe and clean lake for future generations. Boyles: Leichty and Boyles will get together and form a process to be reviewed by Council and LAC so that expectations can be met. B. COMPREHENSIVE LAKE MANAGEMENT STUDY Mader: Views two major priorities for the lake: 1) safety, and 2) preservation of the shoreline. Direction for priority, if we don't accomplish these, then nothing is achieved. Larson: We need to look at all the issues, eutrophication, etc. Trapp: The LAC should make a list of issues to be dealt with and go back to Council to see if they agree with LAC objectives. Gontarek: As much lake issues as possible were incorporated into the new 509 plan. Land use practices have big impact on water quality and quantity. Mader: The City and DNR both have jurisdiction to enforce regulations about the lakeshore. Mr. Mankowski: Didn't believe the City had enforcement abilities below 904. Mader: The City can be more restrictive than the DNR if it so chooses. Trapp: Nobody wants to do enforcement. Educate people, give them the opportunity to dot the right thing and then enforce any ordinances if they aren't followed. Larson: Interested in getting som~ closure on lake management. LAC will take care of personal venting first before passing on ideas to Council. We need clear direction from Council. Mader: Asked Larson if he would like a new motion from Council. Trapp: Wetlands also need to be looked at, concerning lake management. Kearney: We are just a small part of the solution, we need to work and coordinate our efforts with the DNR and Watershed. If we come up with an idea, there's a lot of legal issues with making changes to the lake. Mr. Mankowski: The reason DNR set regulations was so as not to violate other bodies on the lake. DNR set regulations so that one group wouldn't benefit over another. The people need to be educated. Mader: There is nothing wrong with addressing all of the issues, but we'll have to decide which things are manageable and changeable. Schenck: Would like to see the Water Resource Management Plan updated. Ms. Mankowski: The Prior Lake Association would be willing to help financially with a lake management plan, it's a part of their charter. Mader: As a committee he encourages the LAC to receive public input. If you don't follow the popular vote, it doesn't mean you haven't followed the process. Boyles: Council will redefine the directives and prioritize what's hot and what's not, then this will be given back to the LAC. C. PRESENTATION BY PRIOR LAKE/SPRING LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT: LAKE LEVEL MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS. Gontarek: There are managerial constraints and physical constraints with the lake. 1) Managerial Constraints: The DNR does not have a real strong desire to manipulate lake levels. The DNR likes to see the bounce on the Jake up to the 904 elevation, for natural fluctuations to simulate natural conditions. The Watershed can't outlet below 902.5, except between the months of March and April, it can outlet at 902. 2) Physical Constraints: The channel needs to be upgraded before a new Joint Powers Agreement can be executed. The outlet structure can only release 35-40 cfs because of its' design. The ability to control the lake is very limited. The outlet structure was not intended for flood prevention, but for flood relief. Downstream aspects need to be looked at also when operating the outlet, downstream erosion is a problem. Providing upstream storage is very restricted in contributing to volume relief, due mainly to the limited topography in the southern part of the watershed. Land use practices that provide better infiltration are being promoted. Peterson: Asked if there was a possibility of restricting the flow out of Spring Lake to hold more water upstream. Gontarek: Some water could be held back in Spring Lake, but it would not do a lot of good, you could gain several inches, but there is limited benefit. The current hydrologic model is based on historic data. Someone asked if there are funds available from outside sources to help alleviate flooding and water discharge. Gontarek: Yes, the Watershed recently met with agencies to discus funding sources. Soderstrom: Asked if it was possible to go back to Belle Plaine to recoup some funds, this community is a recreational community, when the outlet is shutdown it has huge impacts on the lake. This community will dramatically change with high water levels. If the lake continues to go slow no-wake, property values will go down. How much will it take to install another pipe? Larson: You have to prove benefit to property owners in order to assess them. Mersch: It is very hard to prove benefit to non-Iakeshore owners. Larson: The outlet should have been engineered better originally. What should be looked at is purchasing homes built in the flood plain or low homes. IV. NEW BUSINESS Boyles: Mentioned that anyone interested in serving on the Credit River or Shakopee Basin WMO committees should contact him. v. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY LARSON, SECONDED BY WARNER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:50 P.M., MOTION PASSED UNA NIMO USL Y. Respectfully submitted, 6~ Recording Secretary