07-23-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

For the past twenty years, the LMCD has maintained a close working relationship with the 14 cities. According to the findings of the "1999 Conference" the LMCD did that relatively well. But they were weaker in developing an equally close working relationship with regional and state agencies. The Conference findings state that they could have done better in the latter area. Right now, the LMCD maintains a close working relationship with individual cities. Some LMCD Directors meet routinely with their City Councils; others do not. We believe it to be true that on most issues of great import, the level of communication between the individual city leadership and the leadership of the LMCD is very high. The Management Program currently maintains that close association. Each of the cities will continue to appoint their director, just as they do now. But they will sit on the Board with four new members. Those four new votes will be added to the 14 votes of the cities. We see not diminution of local control; we see increased coordination and communication between organizations heavily involved on the lake. Page 1, 1. "The LMCD was created to be the agency immediately concerned with the protection of the lake, as a natural resource, from environmental deterioration including aesthetic deterioration, and the preventing of pollution. This plan focuses on increasing recreational activities, rectifying past inequities in access growth and intends to implement environmental protection only after it accomplishes these goals." RESPONSE; That position is certainly not reflected in the LMCD enabling legislation. The LMCD was formed under The Laws of 1967, Chapter 907, as amended. Nothing in that legislation indicates that the District was to restrict its activities and concerns to pollution. Indeed, most of Section 3 addresses the powers of the LMCD with respect to recreation. Throughout its history, the LMCD has given attention to both controlling pollution and recreation resource management. Which received primary attention was determined by the needs of the times. The City of Orono is wrong on a second count. The Manageme-.t Program set goals and objectives for both environrantal and recreational management. Implementation of the goals a w objectives is largely determined by the funds available to the LMCD, and when we believe additional funds may be forthcoming. Again, this Management Program does not focus on increasing recreational use. The City has simply misread the Management Program. There is a world of difference between allowing access to continue to grow and taking an advocacy position to increase use during peak hours. We suggest the City of Orono review the