Laserfiche WebLink
01 <br />If the major concern is delay, the preferred alternative should be that which <br />avoids a legislative campaign or other action which would constitute a major <br />delay in planning. Local opposition to any choice is also likely to add to the <br />time required in any process. <br />While there is delay in Critical Area Designation (to secure the status) a <br />strong argument for --it is the likelihood that an emergent plan will be imple- <br />mented. The possibility of securing planning funds from a state source is <br />another attraction. It will however, take more time to institute the program <br />and no state funds are currently available for planning. The Councils 1988 <br />work program and budget would have to be amendec if the Council were designated <br />as lead agency. <br />If LMCD accelerates its planning proceso, with continual input and review from <br />a regionally responsible group, the plan Which results will likely be similar <br />to that developed in a Critical Area process. There is clearly less certainty <br />that it would be implemented. For example, there would be no requirement for <br />municipalities to amend local comprehensive plar.s. There are no state funds <br />for this local process unless a direct appropriation for planning costs came <br />from the legislature. Funds for a loan are available at. the Council. Under <br />this alternative, the Council's involvement in the actual planning would be <br />limited to participation in a technical and policy advisory body, with <br />representatives of other interests. It could set conditions on the study if <br />financially i,avolved. Conditions could include review and comment on the final <br />plan, a plan schedule and composition of advisory groups. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br />That the Metropolitan Council: <br />1. Recommend that LMCD continue preparation of a comprehensive surface use <br />plan for Lake Minnetonka but under an accelerated schedule and •• a <br />process thaw provides for region wide input in a technical ce- ttee and a <br />policy advisory board. The Council should offer a planning _sistance loan <br />to an appropriate municipality. The loan agreement should ,)ecify <br />establishment of an adequate joint powers contract betwee the muu:cipality <br />and LMCD to establish the guarantees the Council finds rsce. t'or the <br />plan. The understanding with LMCD should call for a report to ti- =submitted <br />for Council review and comment by the opening of the state legislative <br />session in 1989. <br />2. In the event that satisfactory agreements are not worksu out by <br />March 18, 1988, the Council should recommend Critical Area Designation for <br />Lake Minnetonka as its second choice among the alternatives. <br />u2. 16.88 <br />JG005A/PROTXO@6 <br />