Kelly…thanks for your input!
Can you imagine what it would be like if, after investing in a lake place with retirement in mind, having to face these issues or even the potential of the Eminent Domain process taking it away from you.
It certainly reminds us that government in this country was made to protect the people’s best interest, and that our founding fathers knew through history we must be ever vigilant to not let government actions go unchecked. The thought that ED can be used to purchase a new public access, when the purchase arguably does not accomplish much for the tax payers, reminds us of that. I have sent an email into the folks you listed Steve and gave them my input as a ML user and home owner, which is we need to spend money to expand and improve our existing access points, including enlarging the harbors, build ocean-quality breakwalls, dredge channels for safe navigation to deep water, etc. (check out Chequamagon Bay’s/Lake Superior recent upgrades); we should have three or four of those high quality public accesses on ML with the number of visitors. Thanks for keeping us all in the loop Steve and let us know if there is anything else we should be doing in addition to writing and calling.
Kelly
I like your thinking Kelly. 
They should use that money to increase the “qaulity” of the exisitng accesses by dredging and putting break walls in to hold the sandback. That way this would benifits multiple accesses points instead of just one.
I have been reading this thread for some time, and one point I was questioning, I am gonna throw out. I am wondering if the DNR or state or anyone, has done a study on where most of the people accessing Mille Lacs are coming from. In other words, the North, South , East or West. I would wager a months salary, that the south would be the highest percentage, day in and out. That brings me to the question, why would you put a new Public Access on the northen edge ? I realize, business in the area, would really benefit, but lets be smart with our resources too. I would think the most bang for the $$$ would be the South and South East corner.
Glen Ertl
PS the Malmo Market is full everytime I go already… 
I just recieved an email from Steve, he recieved a letter from the MnDNR reguarding the proposal to aquire the Ray’s Boat Dock property. Sadly it states that a deal has been made and they are in fact going ahead on the deal 
This is our tax money at work….now watch where it goes!
I don’t understand this at all.
Where is the ranting about “current” lake conditions and where is the funds to repair existing ramps?
With the current status of the water level, when are they going to take care of the existing ramps?
Is there no focus or funds to get the current public access’ in better condition for launching a boat with this low water?
Makes no sense! When will the new launch be done and does it even matter? Will they dredge this one so there is on access that people can use. Just plain stupid.
Here is the letter from the MnDNR
March 28, 2007
Mr. Steve Fellegy [email protected]
Dear Mr. Fellegy:
I want to start by thanking you again for your input regarding the proposed acquisition by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) of the Ray’s Boat Dock property on Mille Lacs Lake for use as a public water access. The input that we received from yourself and others over the last several months has provided our staff valuable additional data and insight as we continued to evaluate the proposed propelty purchase. Based upon the results of our evaluation of this public water access proposal, the Department has decided to proceed with the purchase of the Ray’s Boat Dock property from Mr. Ray Hallet. To that end, a closing date has been scheduled.
As stated, the decision to proceed with this purchase is based ptincipally on the Department’s multi-disciplinary review. These reviews have concluded that the Hallet parcel meets the criteria and long-term strategic plan for providing small to medium sized public water access facilities, with protected launch areas, dispersed around the perimeter of Mille Lacs Lake.
In answer to your question regarding the potential expansion of the Garrison Bay Public Water Access, this property is presently scheduled to be redeveloped in the next several years, however, my staff has confirmed the presence of several documented American Indian Heritage Sites within and immediately adjacent to the former wayside rest. Based upon the information available, these sites will likely limit any options to expand beyond the limits of previous development.
The Depattment has also completed an initial engineeling/design study of the Ray’s Boat Dock property. These initial studies demonstrate that the Hallet parcel and the associated harbor will provide sufficient area to develop a water access facility that will safely and effectively accommodate between 20-30 vehicles with trailers including the launching and rettieving of the full range of typically trailered watercraft. In association with the proposed development of this property, we will also be completing initial environmental and archaeological/historical reviews, however, the acquisition or development of a public water access does not meet any mandatory category under Minnesota Rules for the completion of an EA W.
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Oppommity Employer
ft: Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a \.., Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
Mr. Steve Fellegy March 28,2007 Page Two
Lastly, many commented, yourself included, that the principal concern for not locating a public water access on the Ray’s Boat Dock parcel is the apparent lack of sufficient water depth along the northern shoreline of Mille Lacs Lake to allow for unhindered boat access to the lake from the proposed launch area and harbor. The current water levels, are of course, based primarily on the dryer than average cycle that we have experienced throughout much of the state over the last year plus and are not considered to reflect a pronounced long-term trend. Based upon this information, the decades of demonstrated use of this property as a marina and launch area, and our expelience with Department facilities statewide and on Mille Lacs Lake, it is our committed belief that the concerns related to water depth do not and will not represent long term operational Issues.
In closing, I again want to thank you for your interest in and comments regarding this project.
Sincerely,
Forest Boe, Director
Trails and Waterways Division
FB/ks/dsl
Bye-mail
c: Commissioner Mark Holsten
Deputy Commissioner Laurie Martinson
What an absolute sham!!!! What are they hiding? I know at least 20 people that I know personally that called or emailed mr boe. It has obviously fell on deaf ears. There is no doubt in my mind that there is an alterior motive. I made another call and left a message regarding how disappointed we as sportsman were in the management of our funds. I also put in emails to channels 9, 11, 4 and 5 regarding this. I would encourage everyone that uses this great resource to do the same and help make sure something like this never happens again with our money.
John
Here’s my reply to him and Holsten…the DNR Commissioner:
“In a nut shell…you people are very foolish in this regard.
Between the local law enforcement suggestions to you and all the other
issues….ONLY your ego’s could have been reason to come to this conclusion!
Your info in regard to long time use is WRONG! And SHARE the harbor? Never
happen! Sheer stupidity on your part. (I doubt Mark Holsten knows the
realities here) Someone better face them–fast!
The TV people in the Twin Cities will have you for lunch on this…
Your dept. in this regard is an embarrassment!
Steve Fellegy”
And this directly to Mark Holsten:
“Mark:
I am out of town but would like you to call me or allow me to call you asap
after April 7th. BEFORE your reckless closing on this venture.
The issue of “shallow water” Forest Boe brings up is the LEAST of your
problems.
Believe us! You better back out of this one fast! Call Scott Turner, Aitkin
County Sheriff and ask him HIS thoughts and concerns…that he told Forest
and the rest.
218-927-2138
Call me April 8th. Thanks!”
Steve, and everyone else, don’t forget that Mr. Holsten is a school teacher by trade who got elected to a political office and then managed to get a position with the DNR with absolutely no proper credentials because he would be a good “go-between” for the DNR to use to communicate with the Legislature. He holds his current position with the DNR only because of his familiarity with the established system, being in the right place at the right time, and his being a crooney for the politicals that want to run everything based on political agenda, not on sound scientific fact or study. He is a puppet for a state legislature that is controled by a majority whos political affiliation is indebted to native american interests, and not the interests of this states citizens, nor their majority opinion. So please, don’t hold your breaths thinking that he or anyone else at the state level is going to do anything to stop this waste of state funds, because they don’t care what we think….even if it does make good sense!
The only way to stop this will be a lawsuit and a court injunction. 
How about a human chain?
We also have to stand up at the elections. We need people who will represent us, not just fish the opener and forget about us the rest of the year.
This really P’s me off! From everything I’ve read this is a bad deal…real bad! As you can see from my earlier post, I even contacted the DNR myself and got the rub-off! I feel that with ALL the knowledgable people that have patiently, yet relentlessly, spoken with our elected officials, over-and-over again, this thing smells!!! I hope the I-TEAM catches’em all with their hands in the till!
Tuna 
Has anyone called the I-Team? or media on this deal?
Just back from a ten day road trip and found out the check has been cashed already on the access purchase ordeal.
Now it get’s bloody! The news crews will have them for lunch.
I predict this will never get developed and will be sold or lay vacant for years.
Hey Steve, glad to you see survived the SD winds and cold. I was looking at the pic on live leader board and noticed some buys using hair dryers on the boats. I’m wondering why?? Was is just to loosen the controls on the kicker so they could get is started?? I’m guessing once you made a run everything was wet and froze again???
Steve, I sure hope the news/media do take this on….Its a great story on tax payers wasted moneys….
wait and see……..thanks for keeping us posted!
All the DNR has to do if some news organization starts looking into it is say it was wanted by the indians and the news people will put the story to bed.
That is what I was thinking Jack, with this whole deal.
Could it be, that the DNR has intent on purchasing this, no matter what, for long term investment? Could it be they did this, thinking they should purchase it now, before the band purchases it?
With the steady decline in resorts and the steady increase in property values this may not be so bad if you look at the long run.However there is also a need to maintain and finish the landings they have now especially with the low water that doesnt seem to be rising yet.I doubt the natives would be interested in this as just a boat ramp.
Gary…your reference to the DNR/Trails and Waterways Division “thinking” in this regard is funny.
The TV people have their sights set on this one already….it’s gonna get bloody!
As I said…after all is said and done…I doubt this will not be anything but a white elephant for the DNR. I told them all that would happen in those exact words if they went ahead with the purchase.
I hate rippin’ at the DNR because in general, they ALL do a fine job for the most part. This time sound reasoning and sound managment was trumped by who knows what.
Hey all. I just wanted to make sure that I’m not missing anything here. The crux of the issue (ignoring the shared ownership issues, which strike me as seperate) is that our money would be better spent making a ramp, any ramp, more hospitable to launching today’s “fishing boats”. So, ramp will need constant dredging/maintenence, water too low, those are the main issues people have with this ramp? What is the sheriff concerned about? People running aground at speed??
The MAIN issues are the shared harbor shoreline, low water out in the main lake(not in the harbor by the ramp) and hiway issues.
The sherrif told the DNR that he was worried the public would be in constant trouble with the co-owner of the harbor–using his docks etc. for loading and unloading purposes and noise issues as well–being that the co-owners home is about 31 ft. from the harbors edge. The co-owner is worried about himself and his properties safety.
The objective of the DNR is to create a “safe harbor” for public access use. And add parking spaces to the Mille Lacs total. The DNR believed the seller about low water issues and NOT me!
When viewed with common boating sense and property development engineering basics….nothing passes the least amount of scrutiny with this venture. NOTHING!!!!
TV people are scheduled to do on-site investigative stories on this before opening weekend as lead stuff relative to the opener at Mille Lacs.
This will go down as one of the biggest mis-managements of Trails and Waterways funds in the history of the Division.
Thanks for keeping us up to date Steve!
And this story in todays Mille Lacs Messenger newspaper…….including a few lies by the seller and the DNR. (Ray has not spoken to the neighbors) Including Ray…..ALL owners have had shallow water issues EVERY year contrary to what Forest Boes proclaims in the news story! Can anyone actually believe in/envision a “privacy fence” down the middle of the harbor…across the water…and still use the harbor? If it is anywhere else on the property…it has zero meaning/effects! lol lol
http://www.millelacsmessenger.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=34&ArticleID=16433
I went by Liberty, and did not see any changes in that ramp.
Update: I recieved a call from a cites TV reporter doing an investigation piece on the purchase (I think she said channel 9). I am meeting with her April 20th to discuss the purchase and plan on aurguing this was a waste of tax payer money, if the goal is to provide public access to the lake, for the reasons articulated by many of you above. It won’t change the purchase since it has went through, but at least maybe it will remind the DNR to consider alternives when spending money on public ML access in the future. I’ll report back after I meet with her.
Kelly
Good going Kelly! I assume that is Julie from Fox 9.
Feel free to call and discuss this anytime.
I am out of town from the 17th -29th of this month……
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
