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

Home Browse Search

5 LMCD, with a management consortium of other agencies which share managerial responsibility for the lake, or in some combination of all these. Coordinating local government actions around the lake i:, well within the capabilities of the county. o Planning and managing recreation use of the lake could be nhared or wholly carried out by SHRPD, which has 30 years experience in managing recreation programs in significant natural resource areas. It currently does so for 25,000 acres of open space recreation lands and is the sole or joint provider of recreation access to many of the large lakes in Henna iin County. Hennepin Parks board is elected from suburban Hennepin Cour I district plus County Board appointees. As a special Jistrict, it has an operating levy authority which is outside the legislative cap on both county and municipal governments. Hennepin Parks alas has bonding authority to meet capital needs for recreation open space facilities outside the regional system. It is rli.,^:ble for regional recreation grants as well. o Protection of water resources and management to maintain quality could legitimately be assumed by the Minnehaha Creek `,;atershed District, the water management organizatia►i responsible for the watershed which contains Lake Minnetonka.. The district is charged with general responsibilities for water issues and can legally act in more areas of concern than can LMCD, including surface use ►-anagement and control of shore activities which affect the lake. As do all WMO's, the MCWD has levy authority for its capital and operating needs. The membership is appointed by the Hennepin and Carver County Boards. The district is one of the Longest standing WMO's in the region and currently includes all the communities in LMCD. it's improbable that any of the suggested alternative agencies would be e^ger to assume new tasks. Letting agency acceptance would be difficult. An arCu- ment some will raise against reassiFnmant is LMCD's past success with water quality issues on Lake Minnetonka, the original reason for its creation. Thprc is an argument against, too, in that LMCD can concentrate all its atte:,zipn on lake issue!, t..iving no others to deal with. A body with wider .:1nce rns say be less likely to make decisions which fit local problems. ':ue veneral difficulties and risks of a legislative initiativr aifeet this chc_r they do the previous one. OPTION 3. Declaration of Met.opolitan Significance The Council could choose this option if it decides the problem is LMCD's procedures r.nd thinks there's a remedy in public attention. It could require a revised plan to meet Council concerns. The Council has •seldom invoked this authority; when it has, it has attracted a great real of attention and much activity to avoid the prolonged moratorium which can tee imposed. The primary problem with choosing this way to resolve the issue is that the situation lacks a project, development or active planning process to halt as a means of oompel'ing satisfactory change. The identified problem includes . estrable delay. Metropolitan Significance review is not likely tc compel action.