CC PACKET 04281992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J 1 • April 9, 1992 To: Thomas D. Burt City Manager Saint Anthony Village Dear Tom: . After receiving your letter of April 1 , 1992 regarding the City Council decision about use restrictions on Silver Lake and subsequent discussion with you and Association Officers, I believe there has been a basic misinterpretation* of the proposal by the Lake Association . I will attempt to remedy this Problem by giving some historical Perspective to this issue . The Silver Lake Residents Association, at their annual meeting in 1989, decided to survey residents in order to seek direction regarding usage and management of the Lake . This was decided upon not as a demonstration " lake ownership" but rather as a group that are materially impacted by active use of the lake. An exhaustive Poll was developed (the .results of which are in..your files) . What was found in the Poll , was that there was a large body of residents around the Lake who believed that motor usage • should be restricted in order to allow for a greater variety of lake activities (swimming, fishing, canoeing, wildlife watching, etc . ) . This group is quite large and their Preferences were explicitly articulated . The Poll al-so demonstrated there was another body of residents that Preferred to use their motor boats on the Lake . At the annual meeting in 1990, the Silver Lake Residents Association decided to Proceed with an ordinance that accommodated both groups in that it allowed unrestricted motor usage for the bulk of the time, but set aside certain hours for alternative use also. After 1990 annual meeting, a body of residents from around the Lake, who Preferred to use motors on the lake gathered and asked that another vote be taken . They brought this matter up at the r 1991 annual meeting and the Poll was agreed upon . You have the results of the Poll . You should know that of the sJx People not voting, three were the result of the ballots not being sent in by the Person who collected them. We know the addresses of the residents who did vote, but were not counted and they have stated that they favored the Ordinance . One Person who voted against the ordinance did so because they wanted different hours restricted (4:00-7 :00 PM) . The Proposal that was taken to the City Council therefore was not a "close vote" . Indeed, the vote was 59% in favor of r•estrictiri�7 motor usage 'if all the ballots were counted (this can be • verified) . Also, the Preferences of the .residents were not really about some restrictions or none, but the majority (59%) Preferring no motor