04-28-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

line access sites and for research about lake use. The Commissioner of iNR shou'd specificall;, confer with 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, MnOOT, the lake communities, and there are others still. All should continue, no recommendation of the MCTFLM should be interpreted as calling for a reduction n those activities. 5.3 Funding s required to support the activities recommended in 2 above, as follows. Present funding is too limited to carry out the recommended expanded activity. a. LMCD is currently funded fro,.i 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: i) That the support received from member municipalities be continued tc LMCD, wit 'n the currently authorized millage limit but with the change that the levy become a special levy not subject to the statu- tory 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 reasonable and proper. While some increased revenues may be realized from this source, they will probably not be adequate of themselves. This source may be affected by discussions going on in the state regarding the authority to charge fees for any commercial activity in which a state resource, such as a water bod,, or its bottoms, is used by entrepreneurs. 3) That LMCD receive increased funds from oth,. Man its levy for its planning and regulatory activities which gc eyond the local inter- est. Those funds could appropriately be ft-a a boating safety source as they will serve to increase boati g safety through research and education. h. Hennepin County 1) The Sheriff's Water Patrol is currently funded in part from state boatin afety funds and in part from the Hennepin County budget. The sources appear appropriate to MCTFLM which suggests that some increase is appropriate from the state boating safety source kthis source and its expansion is discussed below) for in.-reases in enforcement, which benefit all users, and for increased activity in safety planning and education. Some increase in Hennepin County funds to the Sheriff's -atrol are also appropriate in light of the fact that the great maiority of Lake Minnetonka users are from Hennepin County. 4