04-14-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the proposed new regional facility, LMCD should be requ•!sted to carry out the task as a regional implementing agency. In the latter event, modification of LMCD's legislative authority may be required (see Appendix C) . d. Minnesota DNR should continue its present activities on the fake .including: - Providing enforcement by conservation officer patrol including recent expansion in the amount of hours spent on the lake by an increased enforcement staff. - Continue to carry out its other statutory responsibilities for such tasks as permit review and wetland, lake b-,ttom and water protection. - Continue to implement those parts of the 83TF recommendations which lie within its authorities, but with closer coordination with LMCD with particular respect to the selection (i.e., needs assessment, priorities and nrocess for selection) of boat launch and/or shoreline access sites and for research about lake use. The Commissioner of DNR should specifically confer wit:i LMCD as an ad hoc participant in its process of developing a plan for lake access. DNR should strive to implement the 83TF plan and other future actions on Lake Minnetonka which affect public access to the lake in a manner which is consistent with applicable plans. e. Other authorities are responsible for various parts of the overall management and protection of Lake Minnetonka. Examples include MCWD, Carver County, MnDOT, the lake cor.ununities, and there are others still. All should continue, no recommendation of the MCTFLM should be interpreted as calling for a reduction in those activities. 3. Funding is required to support the acLivities recommended in 2 above, as follows. Present funding is too limited to carry out the recommended expanded activity. a. LMCD is currently funded from two principal sources: revenues from marina licensing and a levy upon its member municipalities. To carry out its increased and more proactive role. MCTFLM recommends: 1) That the support received from member municipalities be continued to LMCD, within the currently authorized n,'milage limit but with the change that the levy become a special levy not subject to the statutory limits set on the municipalities. This would confer greater visibility on a major funding source for the more active LMCD as well as make the task of raising the funds easier for the municipalities. 2) That the support received from marina regulatory fees be continued and maximized to the extent -easonable and proper. While some increased revenues may be real;zed from this source. they will probably not be adequate of themselves. This source 15