Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 2/22/1988

Home Browse Search

CONTINUE BUT ACCELERATE THE LMCD STUDY AND PLANNING PROCESS The Council could chose to follow the LMCD's proposed study/planning process but require an accelerated schedule for complet-'on, plus require assurances that the plan will use a regionally acceptable planning base. Pro and Con Review of the LMCD request for proposals shows a reasonably complete list of the points which the Council has described as important to resolve the issues. Tnere are ten topics listed in the RFP which are to be addressed in the Draft and Final Management Plan, as follows: Lake Surface Access . Uplar,1 Environmental Protection Lake Surface Use . Water Quality . On -Shore Facilities . Intergovernmental Relationships . Public Safety . Institutional Arrangements . Shoreland Aesthetics . Funding Alternatives The topics are developed to some detail in the RFP. No priority is evident in the proposed list of tasks, all are to be completed in the current three- year schedule. The last three listed are probably of greatest interest to the Council but the work program calls for extensive work on these topics to begin in the second phase, i.e., the second year of work. Continuing with L4CD is the only alternative which requires no legislative or outside agency action, initiative or decision. Work can begin upon approval. It appears that issues over time schedule and performance requirements can be met by agree►aent between the Council and LMCD. This is especially true if the Council were to provide funds to accelerate the study. A schedule and performance measures could be made a condition of the loan agreement. On that specific point, inquiry with legal and long-range planning assistance program staff confirms that the Council cannot make the loan directly to LMCD. The Council can make the loan to a member municipality. Legally, the Council could make one condition of the loan agreement a satisfactory joint powers contract between the municipality and LMCD which would make the Council an interested third party to a binding agreement. The arguments against this alternative remain as listed above. The safeguards for the Council's interest in a promptly implemented surface use management are not as great as in other choices. The history of recommendations and plans to remedy the issues on this lake suggests that plans are very likely to languish without acceptance and/or implementation. CONCLUSIONS The following matrix compares the suggested alternatives in several criteria which meet the Council goals stated above.