02-08-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

0 r Any recommendation for change, from 1.MrD or P19Pwherej will necessarily becom a legislative initiative. As pointed out elsewhere, LMCD will need wide endorsement for its legislative program to pass. The LMCD planning process should be the appropriate forum to debate this issue and changes should not be initiated until the plan is in. The Council should not endorse a partial LMCD legislative request. LMCD member cities, outside interests and the Metropolitan Council will each find issue with some of the current proposals. Opening the issue of LMCD's representa- tion in a piecemeal fashion and without a fully endow ed proposal can only lead to trouble. One reason for LMCD legislation is their need for funds to carry out planning. Another is that waiting for plan completion on its current schedule would post- pone change to at least the beginning of 1991--longer than most actors are willing to wait. Both of these factors support the suggestion that the Council could make an important contribution to this process by granting funds to accelerating the plan. Topic 4: Planning Schedule The LMCD proposes a three-year study prior to drafting a comprehensive plan. A draft comprehensive lake management plan for the beginning of 1991, at the earliest, appears to be a long delay. Council recommendations were for action in 1986 and 1987. Some LMCD communities have voiced their concerns with the status quo, and the issues persist. Finally, some lake communities face deci lions that could seriously affect the lake and may not be able to wait. The crux of the issue is that LMCD legislative proposals should follow the study and planning process rather than be decided in advance. An LMCD legislative program will need endorsement outside the Lake Minnetonka community. Wide endorsement is unlikely until the planning process is concluded and recommenda- tions fully documented. A plan with sufficient endorsement to be implemented is needed to end the unceasing battles which have centered around Lake Minnetonka. An alternative would be for the Council to seek funds for a planning grant to LMCD. One hundred thousand dollars could accelerate the process, possibly in time for a presentation early in the 1989-90 legislative session. Sources for the funds include the community planning loan fund at the Council or, if judged more appropriate, requesting a special legislative appropriation for the purpose. Topic 5: Planning Participants The study process proposed by LMCD's RFP does not chart involvement for other than LMCD and the consultant. Nothing in the document excludes others, but involvement outside LMCD is not prescribed. There are reasons for involving others in the planning process, not the least is avoiding the charge that results are provincial, hence unfair to the general public. The LMCD study should incorporate a regional perspective from start to finish. As an alter- native to the current restricted plan, the Council could recommend as follows: 1) LMCD should develop a technical advisory committee to work with LMCD staff and the consultant. The committee should include staff from such agencies as DNR, Metropolitan Council, SHRPD, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Cray Freshwater Lab, Hennepin County Public Works, Sheriff's Water Patrol, etc. 2)