MOUND, Minn. — After more than two hours of testimony from lake neighbors, environmental consultants and state regulators, the Mound City Council directed the city attorney to prepare a resolution denying the petition to form a Harrison's Bay lake improvement district (LID). The council plans to consider a formal resolution at a subsequent meeting within the 10–30 day window specified in state guidance.

What the proposal would have done: Petitioners sought a LID that would include 233 properties around Harrison's Bay and levy assessments for lake management activities such as aquatic invasive species control, shoreline restoration, carp control and public education. Petition organizers told the council the district would give residents a mechanism for long-term funding and would make the bay eligible for larger grants.

DNR briefing and technical framing: Representatives from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ aquatic invasive species program addressed the council and the assembled audience. April Landau, invasive species specialist for the metro area, summarized permitting and safety oversight: “Only herbicides approved and safe by the EPA and the Department of Agriculture are used, and these herbicides are applied at or below the recommended use rates,” she said, describing the state’s permitting and technical-review process. Mike Verhoeven, the DNR aquatic invasive species consultant, explained the statutory framework and said the DNR evaluates permits against criteria including native-plant protection, recreational impacts and water quality.

Proponents’ case: Barton Holling, representing the Harrison's Bay Association, framed the LID as a way to create predictable, local funding and access to larger grants. He said the petition outreach produced 185 responses and that the association proposed a first-year budget of $31,007.50 to cover surveys and early actions. "We believe the LID strategy allows the community around Harrison's Bay ... to have a long term sustainable strategy to improve the health of the bay," Holling said.

Opposition and community concerns: Dozens of residents spoke in opposition, raising questions about chemical treatments, fisheries impacts and the transfer of liability or costs to city taxpayers. Longtime anglers and local fishing advocates said they had observed declines in nearshore fish catches after repeated treatments, and several speakers asked for more joint study involving DNR fisheries staff. John Range, a lakeshore resident and organizer of other fish restoration efforts, said he feared a "one-sided" approach: "I think the danger we have here is this is the danger of a one-sided story," Range said.

Legal, financial and procedural questions: Petition organizers and the DNR discussed boundaries: the proposed LID would be wholly inside the city of Mound and include 233 parcels, plus one marina business. Petitioners said assessments would vary by parcel type with a proposed lakeshore owner assessment around $150; the association proposed a cap of 100% over the initial assessments for the life of the district. Critics raised concerns that trusts, multi-owner parcels and out-of-city shoreline complicate the legal petition process. Several commenters urged stronger DNR post-treatment monitoring and more transparent reporting of herbicide use and silt testing.

Council action and next steps: After hearing technical testimony from DNR staff and roughly 50 people during the public hearing, the council voted to direct the city attorney to draft a resolution denying the establishment of the Harrison's Bay LID. The motion passed by voice vote with one councilor opposed. The city attorney will prepare the formal resolution for the council to adopt (or reject) at a meeting scheduled within the 10–30 day window required by state guidance. Staff and petition representatives said they will continue outreach and can return to the council with revised proposals if the community so chooses.

Why the debate matters: Harrison's Bay is part of Lake Minnetonka and is listed as impaired by state water authorities; residents and environmental groups are seeking ways to reduce phosphorus loading, invasive plants and carp-related re-suspension of nutrients. The LID debate pits those who want a locally governed, funded program to pursue treatments and carp control against those who worry about chemical use, lake-wide coordination and the legal and financial consequences of forming a taxing district that uses city channels for tax collection and administration.