09-10-1990 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED • plan is designed to have the LMCD as the managing entity, I believe that in the long run the LMCD will be supplanted by other agencies that are more bureaucratically staffed to take care of it. Therefore, the benefits that the City can gain from the LMCD will be lost. I believe that the LMCD is becoming a mouthpiece of the DNR because it is beginning to take money from the DNR to perform the functions and activities of the DNR. I believe that the City Council should vote against this plan." Nettles said, "I agree in large measure with the things that Ed has said. I would like to thank JoEllen Hurr, Gene Strommen and Bob Rascop for taking time to meet with us. It helped me to better understand the position of the LMCD. As I thought more about the plan, I compared it to the internal tension that was built into our Constitution, checks and balances. There are many agencies that are involved with Lake Minnetonka. The Legislature has repeatedly given bits of power to each one. You can make the argument that this was done to keep some of that tension in check to prevent any one agency from becoming too powerful. I feel that, even though the motivations of the plan may be positive and sound, we are concentrating too much on what the DNR and Metropolitan Council want to do. The LMCD takes on the position of being a hand maiden to those two organizations. As I understand it, the LMCD was started because of the need for a coordinator for the cities to regulate environmental efforts. I • am worried about setting a force in motion without knowing where it will go. I'm afraid of what may happen once the Legislature gets involved with this plan. I think it is important for everyone to know that really the way the DNR and Metropolitan Council are treating Lake Minnetonka is different from the manner in which lakes are normally treated.. The issue of acres /boat for example is one where I believe Lake Minnetonka is looked upon in a different way. It seems to me that the number of boats per acre has been determined arbitrarily. The number has no bearing or footing in relation to what is safe and environmentally sound. It is just based on the fact that there is a large population here. I share Ed's feeling that one of the primary things we ought to look at is what should be the standard. Do we wait until the last boat is put in on top of the one that preceded it, or is there some other way to do this? That is of great concern to me. If a conclusion cannot be reached, then I would like to see an environmental impact statement, in the truest sense, each time this issue is considered. Some users are going to be forced off of the lake if usage continues to grow. As I understand this report, better though it is, we don't get down to saying there isn't going to be anymore access until 929 boats are added to the lake, if I understand that right. I can't imagine 229 more boats on the lake in peak hours before we get to 7 acres per boat. 40 - 3 -