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

Home Browse Search

2, LMCD has prepared a 13-point legislative program (attached), submitted it to the revisor's office and secured a draft bill (attached). They are in the process of review of the draft and intend to make several clarifying changes before trying to introduce the bill. An explanation is in order for the way LMCD says legislative program item 4 and sec. 3(n) of the draft bill should be construed. The language says that "all research" on the lake calls for notification of LMCD. LMCD interprets this to mean "whenever any division of state government begins any activity on the lake, LMCD is to be notified." Thus, if DNR begins a search for a new access site, if the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prepares to set a new regulation, or if a municipality proposes a ne+. ordinance or development which will affect lake surface use, LMCD must be noti first. It is not clear if "review and comment," or "review an .,;vrove" are intended by this proposal. Interpreted this way, the Dill evidently seeks some increase in the coordinating and review ability of LMCD, which is consistent with the report recommendations. Clarifying language is needed. C. The draft bill addresses funding for increased activity by LMCD (and other lake agencies). 1. It calls for separation of the LMCD levy from the statutory levy limit of each member municipality. This is identical to the report recom- mendation. 2. It calls for a lake use permit and would assign the revenues from permit fees to meeting lake management costs. A Lake Minnetonka ..,e permit is not consistent with the task force recommendations. A size- able minority of `:►+e task force were willing to endorse the concept but the majority felt the idea was not supportable. LMCD's position is that it is the only realistic source of earmarked funds they have been able to develop. DNR does not support the lake permit concept. LMCD has also been informed that DNR will not support a general boat license fee increase in 87-88. D. LMCD has discussed increases and applications of revenue from boating/water safety funds with DNR. DNR will call for an increase in these funds in the coming biennium. It is not clear if any of the increase would :o.+e to LMCD for its use. E. The legislative program calls for LMCD to be authorized as an owner - operator of access facilities on Lake Minnetonka. The recommendation is not inconsistent with the report, though the charge is not included per se. F. LMCD has approved a motion of support for the park concept. A copy of tie minutes are attached (Attachment 8). Further, LMCD members have lent individual support at SHRPD. II. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District SHRPD has begun a park planning process. A series of public meetings, con- ducted in November and December, showed support for a Lake Minnetonka parK, inrl•;ding a boat access and access for the nor -boating public. If all proceeds as scheduled, a draft master plan could be ready by rebruary 1987.