04-11-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

4 Table 1, attached, compares eac:� of the five for how well it will meet Council goals. Table 2 compares a set of other factors which may apply to each. Also inc_:::;ed are more detailed observations about each alternative: OPTION 1. Reconstitution of LMCD Board The Co,.ncil would have reason to support this option if " decided that an LMCD or equivalent is needed, but that the present stru-t�,re is weak beause of the too narrow composition of LMCD's board, which is appointed by t:ze councils of the lake communities. Reducing lake municipality representation on the board and adding representatives from county government, special interest groups ai concerned agencies such as Metropolitan Council, Suburban Hennepin Regional : .rk District and MCWD, would make it responsible to a wider constit- uent body. A reconstituted board could be given other authorities needed to meet Council goals when revising the statute. Revision would also offer an opportunity to restructure the diFtrict's finances, --_:deviating some existing problems. The LMCD -evy liNs within the lake municipalities' r-atuatory levy limits which has be :r an impediment to the the present LMCD and a real problem to the municipalities which currently sup- port the district. The problem does not seem to be that too much is needed to manage the lake so much as that it must compete for funding with all otr.ar services within the cities' levy limits. Lake management. fire/police F_nd other services now compete within the limited levy, sericasly res'-icting options to city government. A priz-,iple drawback to this choice lies in the fact that it requires a legislative initiative to create the change. It is likely to be opposed ty the lake muni^ipalit.ies who fear losing control and could be opposed by other lake Interests as well. It could not be implemented in 1988 and would require extensive work in thr legislature to occur by the end of !989. Most of the work would fall on the Council. This plan does not necessarily reduce the complexity of managerial structure for the lake. OPTION 2. Expansion of Lak:. P"anagement Activities by Other Responsible Agencies The Council could select this option if it decides that other. exsting agencies had equal or better expertise and authorities to me�t the r_aals. If the tasks can be assumed by other agencies, overlapping com lexitie, could be simplified as the goals were met. The redundancy of two or more bodies setting policy for esne.1tially the same resource and for the same issjes is obvious. One can make a case, too, for the policymaking and actively managinf agez;oy to L nre and the same. Economies may come from using resour--es that i.e in part rv- indant of those used by LMCD. The following example- ad for discussion: o Hennepin County could plan to meet demands from lake snd allocate r•esouz•cros among them. It's the general government from which moat lake users come and which already provides major funding to manage the lake. The county sheriff's water patrol and the department of transportation deliver major services. Trio county could choose to do the work with its own plt:nners and managers, with the advice of an advisory