Laserfiche WebLink
2) Similar arguments for increased county support of the county DOT <br />maintenance operations appear appropriate, based on the majority <br />percent of usership from Hennepin Count;. <br />c. Regional Recreation Open Space <br />1) Acquisit')n and development dollars for new regional recreation open <br />space features on the lake should come from a special a,propriation <br />of state bond funds as an additional elerrrent in the Regional <br />Recreation Open Space Capital Improvement Program. La►e Minnetonka <br />qualifies as a regional resource and the opportunity to do something <br />significant occurs here. There have been other instances (e.g.. <br />Como Zoo) where the legislature has recognized that a special area <br />or project merits special funding for resolution of a critical <br />situation. It should be treated in such a way as to enable a timely <br />solution without handicapping the long-range plans for orderly <br />development of the rest of the regional system. <br />2) Operations and maintenance funds for a regional recreation open <br />space agency are another important consideration. If a major new <br />entity is funded for quick development, a rapidly increased operat- <br />ing burden is placed on the operating agency. Given the general <br />condition of operating budgets today, this could be a real impedi- <br />ment to action. MCTFLM recommends that this project receive a <br />timely special supplement during "start-up" which will provide ade- <br />quate dollars for the agency to begin operations and make provisions <br />for continuing support in its regular operating budget process. <br />This sort of problem wa- specifically addressed in the Metropolitan <br />Council's position statement on regional recreation 0 6 M; no new <br />direction appears necessary. (See Appendix D, the Council's posi- <br />tion statement on -egional 0 b M supplementary funding.) <br />d. State boating safety fund increases are recommended. The fund could be <br />increased by legislative action increasing the annual allocation from <br />existing sources. Added revenue to the safety fund could also come <br />from increased boat license fees. A substantial portion of the <br />increased safety funds should be granted for special projects to active <br />agencies such as Hennepin County Sheriff's Patrol and the LMCD to <br />support boating safety services. Increases to the agency grants should <br />be tied to inc-eased local effort. <br />The MCTFLM also considered the issue of a separate license or sticker <br />as a source of revenue from boaters or Lake Minnetonka. The task force <br />found the source attractive for its applicability and equity but recog- <br />nized the policy issue it raises, namely, should DNR then require a <br />special sticker for every lake in the state which is attractive to <br />arge groups of boaters? The issue is a major problem to a lake <br />license approach. <br />S.4 The MCTFLM recommends the following schedule: <br />a. Implementation of the recommendations of the 1983 task force for park- <br />ing, new boat launches, and shoreline access should be carried out, or <br />a firm schedule for thei► impleme-itation agreed to, by the end of <br />calendar year 1987. The actions w'll be carried out by DNR, LMCD and <br />specific affected municipalities. <br />E <br />