Laserfiche WebLink
FEE STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE SUMMARY, 11/12/93, p. 2 <br />March 9. 1993 Meeting; <br />1. Initial staff time study reports accepted. <br />2.Review of MDRA Items 5 through 3: <br />(5) Reviewing and processing Code amendments governing <br />multiple docks as needed, engaging attorney to <br />counsel administrative staff, committee me.'nbers <br />and board: <br />* Recommendation control 1ic^nse fees by <br />basing them on ^ three-year Cv^st average. <br />(6) <br />(7) <br />Conducting studies and reviews prompted by the <br />installation and operation of multiple docks <br />which directly impact the lake, i.e. dock <br />construction materials evaluation (foam <br />flotation), off-lake storage, or other. <br />* Agreed as applicable to multiple docks. <br />May even require technics 1 consul ting <br />service. <br />Conducting lake use density studies to <br />determine: <br />a) future boat density and <br />b) distribution allowances of multiple docks <br />as changes in use are measured and reported <br />. . . as directed in the Management Plan for <br />Lake Minnetonka. <br />* Multiple dock representatives suggested 15% <br />of cost of such studies as applicable to <br />MDRA. <br />Servicing litigatjon resulting from failure of <br />multiple dock licensees to comply with LMCD <br />stipulations, orders or ordinance requirements. <br />* MultipIe dock representatives stronqly <br />supported 3. bond or deposit for non- <br />complyinq 1icensees. <br />April } 3, 1993 meeting;. <br />1. Ten Code changes related to multiple docks in past two <br />years prompted question is to who benefits by such <br />ordinances. <br />a. Multiple dock reps. believe entire lake benefits. <br />b. LMCD reps, point out that the existence of multiple <br />dock operations require the ordinances. <br />(8)