Laserfiche WebLink
h <br />As state) by the EQB, the aim (of the Critical Areas Program). <br />...is not a way for the state to acquire land. It is a program used to <br />develop plans for the M ag,ment of areas with demonstrated state or <br />regional significance. <br />A disadvantage of thi9 option is that seeking designation does not ersux�e <br />that it will happe". Its likely that designation woul" be opposed locally. If <br />the Council is designated as the lead planning body for a critical area plan, <br />it would naed to amend its work program and budget for this major task. While <br />an emerging Critical Area Plan is very likely to be well coordinated, there is <br />no assurance that a simplified managing structure will ensue. <br />OPTION 5. Continue, but Accelerate an Amended LMCD Study and Planning Process <br />A principle reason to choose this option could be a Council decision that the <br />most effective way to meet its goals is to work from the status quo, letting <br />already existing institutions proceed in finding solutions to the issues. It <br />could suggest that LMCD modify its plans to meet the committee objections by <br />accelerating the schedule, involving a wider regional planning base and <br />beginning by addressing institutional relationships in a less costly study. <br />MSC has already cited the principle arguments against this choice, i.e., LMCD <br />has not proceeded quickly with the things it could do with its resources, it <br />does not appear to be moving to become the more proactive agency needed for the <br />lake's future, and its proposed plan may fail in implementation, just as <br />earlier plans and recommendations have failed. This choice, too, is unlikely <br />to ,roduce a simplified managerial structure for the lake. <br />SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS <br />The alternative :which best meets the goals summarized is for the Council to <br />recommend that existing authorities become more active participants in a <br />simplified, cl arer and mor-e effeo�i— -rote-- to resolve issues around the <br />lake. The amount of LMCD involvetion' 'd b- decided by the district's <br />willingness to enter into ective par: .-hip with other existing agencies or it <br />could be resolved by legislative: antiin to single out the duplicative <br />assignments. If responsibilities were taken up as suggested in the examples <br />discussed, i.e., Hennepin County became the principle coordinative body, SHRPD <br />became more active in recreation access management and MCND became more <br />responsible for managing the water body itself, a process would be in place, <br />asiig existing authorities, w,.ich would both clarify and simplify managerial <br />structure on the lake. The role of LMCD, as a cour.cil of local governments and <br />as a lake citizen board, would continue, but as an advisory rather than policy <br />making group. As such, it could still continue its efforts for the betterment <br />of the lake and could continue to represent the local perspect'.ve to the <br />agencies engaged in active management. <br />If the agencies cannot, or will net, accept the increased authority/activity <br />which is sugg•ssted, the best alternative to meet Council goals seem to be to <br />pursue Critical. Area Designation for the Lake M4innetenka area. An pointed out <br />in the discussion, the one. really ccnpeliirig argument for this course of action <br />is the assurance that a Critical Area Plan, once developed, will be imple- <br />