Lake Lemon Conservancy District
SRP Freeholder
Committee Meeting Minutes
CBU Headquarters – Room 210
November 9, 2005
The November 9, 2005 meeting
of the SRP Freeholder Committee was held at the City of Bloomington Utilities
and was called to order by SRP Chairman William Weber at 5:35 pm.
Committee
Members present: William Weber, Rob Caserotti, Larry Polley, Mark Moser, Gene
Niednagel, Gail Tala, and Jim Scrimager
Also present: Marty Mann,
LLCD Chairman; Larry Ritter, LLCD Vice-Chairman; Dennis Friesel, LLCD
Treasurer; Bob Madden, Manager; Barbara Ritter, Board Recorder; Rachel Atz, CBU
Representative; and Frank Vilardo, Retired IU SPEA Professor. Absent: Hank Berman, Mike Grady, Dave Keller, Ed Roehling, Mike
Sonneborn, Boyd Sturdevant, and Roger Watkins.
Weber asked Committee if there were any corrections to the September 14, 2005 Meeting Minutes.
CORRECTION TO THE SEPTEMBER
14, 2005 MEETING MINUTES: LET THE
RECORD SHOW THAT LARRY POLLEY AND MIKE SONNEBORN WERE NOT IN ATTENDANCE.
MOTION
BY TALA TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 MINUTES AS CORRECTED, SECONDED BY
MOSER. ALL “AYES.” MOTION CARRIED.
I.
REVIEW OF SURVEY
RESULTS (see attached)
· Asked freeholder opinions regarding the importance of various issues.
o Most important issue was water quality – 50% felt this was top priority.
o Sediment removal was also considered a major problem.
o Next issue considered important was weed control.
o Shoreline erosion is an issue considered fairly important. Weed control and shoreline erosion were about equal in importance.
o Boating safety and depth at docks were considered least important.
· “Depth at my dock” was rated as being somewhat to very important.
o Depth at dock was ranked as the third most important issue.
o The item “depth along access channels” was considered by the total to be least important of the four items.
o Similar to previous item, “depth in main boating area” was considered a somewhat important issue.
o “Health and usability of the lake” was considered to be the most important issue by all districts.
· How soon should the objectives of the project be completed?
o Respondents felt that the objectives should be accomplished within a 10-year time frame. One-third felt objectives should be accomplished within 5 years, and one-third felt ten years. 11% wanted the project completed as soon as possible regardless of costs.
· Respondents gave no clear indication as to how project should be funded.
o About one-third selected each of the three choices – tax based on property value, flat (equal) assessments, or combination of both.
o About one-third of Districts 1,2, and 4 favored assessments as the means.
o Taxes proportional to assessed property value was not the preferred method in any district.
· How willing were respondents to pay higher taxes?
o The item received only neutral support.
o The overall score was 3.68, which was the third highest score among items 5-9.
o This indicates there is not strong support for higher taxes or strong opposition against it.
o This is consistent with the previous item regarding how the project should be funded.
· Respondents “strongly agreed” with the statement that the lake should be dredged.
· Freeholders were asked if they were willing to tolerate inconvenience during the project.
o Received a rating of 4.28, which was the second highest score the 5-9 items asked.
· “Should the lake be dredged to increase boating access?”
o Not as strongly agreed with as the other three.
o Received the least agreement from District II.
o District VII agreed with the statement.
· As before, respondents seemed to have a neutral opinion on need for dredging to increase boating safety. See above.
· Freeholders were asked to rank issues in terms of priority, i.e. long-term health of the lake, depths in main boating area, boating safety, depths in access channels, and depths at docks.
o Items showed a clear preference.
o Half of respondents felt that the health and safety of the lake should be the number one priority.
o Major variation across districts.
§ District VII – 67% felts that the depth in access channel should be the first priority.
§ District VI – almost equally divided between health and safety and depth at docks, 49% and 45%, respectively.
· Freeholders were asked what criteria the Board should use when making decisions – cost or convenience.
o 78% felt that decisions should be made on the basis of costs.
o This was consistent across all districts.
· Most important issues:
o Water quality
o Sediment removal
o Weed control
· Least important issues:
o Boating safety
o Docking and access
· Freeholders felt that the overall health and usability of the lake was the most important.
· Freeholders do not feel the project needs to be rushed.
o One-third indicated a 10-year window would be acceptable if quicker meant more costs.
o Respondents were strongly willing to tolerate some inconvenience during the project and also felt very strongly that decisions should be based on costs.
· Regarding how the project should be funded:
o No clear choice
o Would not be willing to pay higher taxes or an assessment.
o Willingness to pay higher taxes was also confirmed.
o No strong opposition to either choice.
· Survey results show:
o The number one concern is the overall health and survivability of the lake, which should guide decision-making.
o Decisions should be made based on costs.
o Freeholders are willing to tolerate necessary inconvenience.
· Mann felt that the survey feedback was very valuable and enlightening.
· Vilardo felt that freeholders (50%) who replied to the survey took it seriously and with sincerity.
· Weber and Mann would like Committee Members to read and study the results and at the December 14th meeting continue discussing:
o What areas to dredge first
o Recommendations to the board on method of funding
· Mann stated that the Board has no priority as where to dredge first.
· Madden asked Atz if LLCD needed CBU’s Board approval before dredging.
o Atz replied that she would check out and advise.
· Next SRP meeting will be held on December 14, 2005 at 5:30pm. The meeting will be held at the Benton Township Senior Citizens Building in Unionville.
MOTION BY TALA TO ADJOURN AT 7:55 P.M. SECONDED BY MOSER. ALL “AYES.” MOTION CARRIED.
Meeting Minutes submitted by:
Barbara Ritter