2011-09-22_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Master This Comment Date Who Made Comment List # Tables # 69 59 1 own a home on White Bear Lake, and I frequently boat on Lake Owasso. I am a former Roseville resident, and I owned a home on Lake McCarrons from 2003 through 2008. August 24, 2011 Douglas S. Wolgamot, As you know, Lake McCarrons is another lake near the city that recently suffered from water quality issues. Through the successful implementation of a thoughtful and Winthrop & Weinstine, comprehensive plan, the water quality on that lake improved dramatically in a short period of time. No part of the plan impacted or restricted recreational use on the lake. P.A. Lake McCarrons had water quality and clarity issues largely triggered by high levels of phosphorous from runoff, much like the phosphorous issues Lake Owasso experiences from runoff. The Lake McCarrons plan included solutions such as renovating filtration ponds to decrease and filter runoff into the lake and utilizing alum treatment to control phosphorous levels. Clearly there are methods to improve water quality that do not restrict the continued recreational use and enjoyment of the lake. These types of measures should be utilized on Lake Owasso and not recreational use restrictions that will adversely impact safety, property values, and resulting tax revenues. 70 60 It is easy to assume that funds to implement these other non - restrictive measures are not available. It is also easy to assume that because there is no upfront direct cost August 24, 2011 Douglas S. Wolgamot, associated with implementing a use restriction, there is no cost to such a measure. However, the indirect costs associated with implementing such a use restriction would be Winthrop & Weinstine, significant. The detrimental financial impact of use restrictions on property values and property tax revenues must be considered. There are approximately two hundred P.A. forty (240) homes on Lake Owasso. It is reasonable to expect that such a major use restriction would cause at least a twenty percent (20 %) to twenty -five percent (25 %) drop in the average tax assessed value of the homes on the lake, in addition to the already depressed values. If the average real estate taxes for each property on the lake are $8,000 per year, this proposed use restriction would result in a $384,000 to $480,000 annual decline in property tax revenues. This will directly and adversely impact the revenues collected by the city of Roseville, the city of Shoreview and Ramsey County. While a use restriction may be viewed by some as a cost effective method to address water quality issues, its true long -term cost significantly exceeds other less intrusive options. 71 61 Controlling runoff and managing phosphorous levels should be the focus of the GLWMO, not restricting boating activity. A restriction on lake use may marginally improve August 24, 2011 Douglas S. Wolgamot, water clarity, however, this does not mean it is a reasonable solution. Reducing the number of cars on our roadways would improve air quality, but to my knowledge, Winthrop & Weinstine, interstate 694 is still in operation. Instead, we look to other less restrictive ways to achieve the goal of improving air quality. The same is true here. P.A. 72 62 No one is more interested in improving the water quality of Lake Owasso than those who own homes on it and who use and enjoy it. However, measures that do not ignore August 24, 2011 Douglas S. Wolgamot, the other valuable interests of Lake Owasso homeowners, those who frequent the lake, and the surrounding governmental entities must instead be considered. The no Winthrop & Weinstine, boating /no wake zone proposal should be removed from the Watershed Management Lake Plan immediately. P.A. 73 63 As a life long user and past resident of Lake Owasso, I'm 61 now, I have watched the water quality to deteriorate over the years. A NO WAKE and NO BOATING rule is needed. August 24, 2011 Bob Hale As a student of water quality issues and a member of several study groups I feel that it's necessary to stop the degradation. 74 64 1 would just like to add my voice / concern over this proposal as having significant recreation impact the lake. August 24, 2011 Russell Cattelan I use the lake on a regular basis to water ski at an advanced to expert level. Many people do not realize that advanced water ski training requires water conditions to be favorable, which means protection from wind that generates wave and other boat traffic that generate "rollers ". Concentrating boat traffic to a specific open area of the lake would basically mean that conditions would rarely be favorable enough and effectively make the lake unusable for water skiing on anything other than a beginner level. I am concerned about lake quality and would love to see things improve so the lake can be enjoyed for generations to come. But I do also think that it is important to make efforts to preserve the recreation nature of lake use in the twin cites. 75 65 I've been a resident on Lake Owasso for 10 years and continue to pay my very high property taxes for the returned benefit of boating and recreational activities on Lake August 25, 2011 Rob and Dana Van Owasso. That said, implementing a no boating or no -wake zone in shallow areas would directly impact my families ability to continue with these benefits and greatly reduce Hout, Roseville, MN the value of my property. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE !!! I'm a huge proponent of good water quality for Lake Owasso, but there has to be other more impactful ways to manage and improve water quality then to implement no boating /wake rules. You mention a number of them in the following document: Many of these other options would be much more impactful then a no boating /wake rule. Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization — 2011 Watershed Management Plan Response to Comments: 60 -dav review period 9/19/2011 Page 9