Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lake Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
American Lake advisory board weighs expanding district authority and funding to address algae
Summary
At a meeting of the American Lake Management District advisory board in Lakewood, residents pressed the board to move faster on water‑quality problems. The board discussed expanding the LMD’s scope beyond milfoil, petition and voting requirements, permitting constraints and possible assessment increases.
At a meeting of the American Lake Management District advisory board in Lakewood, residents urged faster action on declining water quality and the board discussed expanding the LMD’s mission and funding to address cyanobacteria, milfoil and other lake problems.
“I'm Janet Spingath,” the board chair said during public comment when she recommended the LMD join the Washington Lake Protection Association and create a non‑voting scientific advisory committee to review proposed science and treatments. Several shoreline residents backed that approach and urged more active coordination with city and county technical staff.
Van Kovar, a resident who worked with Pierce County on lake level projects, proposed forming a city project team of technical, financial and legal staff plus property owners to develop a restoration plan and funding program. “They would have city technical staff, city financial staff … legal staff,” Van Kovar said, arguing that a standing project team would speed decision‑making and implementation.
Board members described the legal and procedural limits on immediate action. A board member cited the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) provisions that list allowed LMD activities and noted that adding a project requires a defined process, shore‑owner approval and, in some cases, voter approval to expand assessments above a 150% increase allowed without a ballot. Staff said they are working with the city legal department to clarify the process and timeline for any expansion.
Members emphasized permitting constraints: any chemical treatment beyond current milfoil work would require Ecology permits (and follow NPDES/PDES requirements). The board also noted that funding sources are limited; city staff explained Ecology’s small grant pool derived from a portion of boat‑trailer fees and said statewide funding for lake programs is constrained.
Residents flagged the practical funding gap. Darren Lowry suggested doubling the per‑foot assessment for shoreline owners to raise more revenue; others pushed for a combination of local assessments, Ecology grants and partnerships with outside agencies.
The board agreed to gather legal and procedural guidance, to present clearer options to shore owners and to continue the discussion at the next meeting. Staff will circulate corrected minutes and budget figures and will provide guidance on petition thresholds and the timeline needed to place any assessment change before voters.
Next steps: staff will work with legal on process details, the board will review outreach options for landowners, and the board tentatively scheduled its next meeting for June 11 to coordinate contractor survey timing and further deliberations.
