Laserfiche WebLink
Email to LMCD board chair person Ann Hoelscher, 5/30/25 <br />Thanks for your reply. I listen to the end of the May 28th meeting and find many on the board <br />who don't fully understand LID's. The following are out takes from the board members <br />comments. <br />Jim Theisen thoughts shown in red <br />Rich Anderson speaks about numbers required to ratify a LID. Yes the county says 51%, (but Rich <br />in the Orono council meeting minutes suggests 70 to 75%). This high level of support has been <br />mentioned in different correspondence I have seen to date. I believe the rationale is you need <br />to have significant support to get this enacted. "Not sure why he went down this path?" <br />Mike Kirkwood would like to review in greater detail. <br />Nellis is concerned about the "forever chemical" <br />Jim Paul (he also sits on the board of LMA) talks about "easier than door to door fundraising" "I <br />hear this in every bay, about fundraising fatigue. This by itself is not a reason to make everyone <br />pay, even if you are in the minority, and take on this level of liability". Jim Paul also speaks of <br />misinformation and demonizing Eric Evanson, I believe my information is factual and I do not <br />demonize Eric (please read my presentation attached). He also suggests bringing in Patrick <br />Selter of PLM to speak to your board (PLM is the company that does all of the chemical <br />treatments in Lake Minnetonka and has for years) to speak about the safety of the chemicals. <br />This is like "inviting the fox in to guard the hen house". There are 14 DNR licensed applicators in <br />Minnesota, why does only one get all the business? Jim also spoke of multiple chemicals that I <br />referenced "I referenced only one and that is ProcellaCOR. This is considered a <br />"forever chemical" and Mn Dept of Ag is considering pulling its use. Carman's Bay and Harrison's <br />Bay, possibly more, have been using this chemical, I would suggest instead of consulting with <br />PLM, consider contacting the Mn Dept of Agriculture, or Mn pollution control". <br />Ben Brant, this needs more research. <br />Jim Brimeyer, this has not been fully vetted. It is an extra tax. Be careful about implementing a <br />supposed "good idea". <br />298 <br />