10-22-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. The approach of increasinq restrictions while allowing continued acces? is not likely to prove successful. RESPONSE: The persons and organizations who participated in developing the concept of progressively more restrictive regulation as boat density increases believed that that approach was the best for this lake. That group spent ?ix months reviewing a wide range of alternatives (see Access and Lake Use Preliminary Plans, Working Papers, and all of the monthly hand-cjts). We cannot respond to this unsupported statement, except to observe that the recreation professionals, local government elected and appointed officials, and private citizens that studied this for six months believes that this is the best approach available. Orono needs to provide specific reasons that can be addressed. 4. Other lakes in the state have concentrations of boats fixed at 1:10 (for lakes removed from population centers). If others found a way of setting such a density standard for those lakes, surely we can set one for Lake Minnetonka. RESPONSE: Again, we repeat that these is no boat density standard established b/ the DNR or any other organization in the State of Minnesota. The DNR, and in the metropolitan area, the Metropolitan Access Committee does have these standards for parking spaces at public access points on lakes in the state: 1. for metropolitan lakes - 1 parking space for every 10 acres of water. 2. for lakes in the rest of the state - 1 parking space for every 20 acres of water. These are not boat density standards. They are standards for determining the number of car/trailer parking spaces at each lake with public access. There are no boat density standards set for any lake in Minnesota by the DNR or any other organization that we are aware of. 5. The plan does not assure that the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County or others will agree to the LMCD and constituent communities response to increased boater concentrations. RESPONSE : This really is not true. First, Hennepin County management programs are almost exclusively limited to buoy placement and other operations and maintenance activities and lo law enforcement. If Hennepin County wished to establish a program managing boat density on Lake Minnetonka, we are unable to find a statute that gives them that power since the LMCD already exists by act of the legislature. Given their budqet problems and their relation with the LMCD, we cannot imagine HTe County seeking authority to regulate boat density. At the same time, the Sheriff's Water Patrol provides law enforcement for ^he lake. But it has no mecfianism for establishinq ordinances, •'n 1 y enforcing local and state rules, regulations and laws.