OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED AREA LAKE HAVE SOME POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

The most recent article regarding the proposed Cape-Bollinger county lake didn't fully represent the status of the issue. The following is an effort to give everyone a more complete picture as to where the project currently stands.

The petition drive didn't achieve the results we hope for, to say the least. It was a flop. During the drive it was determined that it was against the wishes of both county commissions that the Senate bill be amended so the lake issue could be placed on the ballot by initiative petition. Also, several people throughout the county expressed no desire to sign the petition until the Senate bill was amended so that the landowners directly affected by the lake were more satisfied. It was clear early on that the petition drive wasn't the solution to getting the lake issue off dead center.

Since the petition drive was started, I have been in contact with a few of the landowners in the proposed lake area. Most expressed no interest in the lake project as originally proposed and, in fact, made contact with me to be sure the message was clear that the people in the Millersville area didn't want to hear any more about it. However, through those conversations I learned what I feel causes many of the landowners to be opposed to the lake. It seems likely to me that with a few changes many of the landowners would support the issue. The following are a couple of the issues represented to me by the few landowners I spoke to and the possible solutions.

The No. 1 problem seems to be the 300-foot barrier around the lake that would be owned and controlled by the lake authority. The solution to this might be a 3-foot topographical barrier, which would end up being a strip of between 15 feet and 200 feet wide around the lake, depending on the slope of the ground. This change would allow existing landowners to maintain ownership of the property not covered by water and develop it or not develop it as they see fit.

This change would result in the lake authority losing some projected revenue. It isn't certain what effect this would have on retiring the construction debt, but revised numbers would be published in an updated feasibility study if there is enough interest among the landowners.

Another frequently mentioned issued is the 5,000-foot zoned area. It has already been agreed that this should be reduced to 3,000 feet and could possibly be reduced even further. A possible solution might be "line of sight" from the lake area. In any event, the grandfather clause would eliminate any current landowners' present operations from having to comply with any lake authority zone ordinances.

Capital-gains taxes are an issue for some. This present a serious problem for those wishing to replace the ground they would lose to the lake. A possible solution is for the lake authority to purchase and equal value parcel of land elsewhere and make a like-kind trade with the affected landowners. By trading for like value, there would be no capital-gains taxes.

For those not wishing to trade land, there doesn't seem to be any way to avoid the capital-gains taxes, only ways to defer them. It looks as though a major reduction of the capital-gains taxes will be part of any federal tax revisions currently being discussed in Washington and, consequently, may not be an issue if an when the lake project gets under way.

There is some language in the Senate bill which gives the lake authority the power to spend money in areas away from the lake area as it sees fit. The reason for this language is to allow for the purchase of mitigated conservation areas which may be required in acquiring the permits to build the lake. This language could certainly be made more specific and clear.

Several would like to see the first slate of lake authority directors elected at large instead of being appointed by the county commission. This would require a change to the Senate bill as well.

Appraised value of the land is a common concern. A suggested solution is to have a couple of tracts of ground appraised. This would give the landowners an idea of what they could expect to sell their property for and would also be good information for the revised feasibility study. Under law, a landowners could request as many as three appraisals and sell for the highest.

These are the most commons concerns heard to date and the possible solutions. The next step will be a meeting of landowners in the Millersville area to determine their interest in the lake based on these solutions and to learn of other concerns.

One thing is crystal clear, and that is there must be support for the lake by a majority of the landowners in order for the project to move forward. And changes to the Senate bill must be made before that support is possible. The next step is to determine if it is possible to make the changes requested by the people who own the property where the lake would be and if the project remains fiscally feasible. The lake project will move forward when a package that will benefit all is developed. This is such a solution. We only have to find it.

Lastly, some have asked about my interest in the lake. Basically, I feel a lake would benefit the area in many ways, and I don't feel the project has ever been given a chance to be fully explored. Most of the reasons for the lake project failing to date have to do with personalities and not with lake issues. I would like for the landowners to be given the chance to list their objections and then challenge those for the lake to propose solutions to those objections. This process will make it possible to build the lake in the now-proposed area or will at least give us all some insight on how to go about proposing a lake in other possible locations.

As time permits, I am contacting more landowners. Landowners interested in discussing the lake issue should contact me at Highway 34 West, Marble Hill, 63764 by mail or 238-2675 by telephone.

Stan Crader of Jackson owns a business in Marble Hill and is a supporter of the proposed lake project.