Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 2/22/1988

Home Browse Search

4 Pro and Con A principal argument in favor is that it could remove one layer of government completely, retain the ordinance and enforcement authority that protects the lake environment and makes provisions for public use for which LMCD was originally constitut-ed. Legislation abolishing the district would need to delegate the appropriate authorities to the new managing agency with provisions for funding to adequately meet the new responsibility. A possible advantage is that there are three alternate choices which are well established agencies or governments. For discussion, the following agencies are offered: o Special District --Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. Hennepin Parks has demonstrated capability to manage natural resource based areas to provide public use. It has planning, managing and enforcement staff in place. It has a capable natural resource management staff who could establish and monitor operational guidelines to protect water quality_ It has an existing operating levy under a legislative limit which is already outside the county's statuatory limit. F_,nnepin Parks also has bonding authority to meet capital needs, plus is eligible for rros grants to develop regional facilities. o State Agency --Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The DNR already has a constitutional responsibility to provide public access to the surface of lakes. It has developed model surface use regulatijns for the state.. It has responsibility and au`hority for some aspects of water quality management and manages many natural resource areas for public use. The DNB's regional structure provides a feasible management ut'_t base. At this time, DNR has no operating budget for a management program on Lake Minnetonka except for boat launch sites, and has limited capital resources for facilities on the lake. Clearly, legislation authorizing DNR to pick up this responsibility would also need to provide adequate operating funds. o County Government --Hennepin County. Hennepin County is the largest, most populous county governmental unit in Minnesota. It delivers services through a wide variety of public use facilities. Past studies have shown that approximately 90 percent of Lake Minnetonka use comes from Hennepin. The county, through its sheriffs water patrol and through its wept. of transportation, is already actively managing various facets of public use on the lake, and is a major contributor to the operating funds expended for enforcement and lake maintenance. There is no question the count, could handle the task if it chose to do so. Arguing against abolition is LMCD's success in dealing with water quality issues around the lake, the original reason for creation of the district. At the time, tie agency demonstrated the ability to deal with a very complex set of issues within and crossing the boundaries of its member municipalities. The result of ics efforts was a water quality restoration program which worked. There is support in a special district's ability to concentrate on the unique probleras foand in the lake management area. A body with wider responsibilities may be less likely to produce plans which fit the local problems. It's highly unlikely that any of the agencies would be eageL to 3o a the new task. Securing agency acceptance and legislative endorsement of this alternat'.ve is a factor against it. This choice is unlikely to accomplish early action.