04-28-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

b. A legislative recommendation for capital and operating funding of the new regional recreation open space entity, based upon a general plan prepared by the implementing agency should be completed and agreed to by the agency, DNR, and Metropolitan Council in time for presentation to the 1987 legislature. c. A legislative proposal for the increased or moiified authorities fo. LMCD and the recommended chance in is levy structure should be pre- pared by October 1986 for presertation to the 1987 legislature. d. A legislative proposal to increase revenues to the state boating safety fund from either existing soirces or from increased boat license fies should be prepared by October of 1986 for presentation to the 1987 legislature. e. The specifics of new boat launch site selection, to be worked out by LMCD, DNR, Metro Council and the regional implementing agency, are dependent in part upon events at King's Point. Installation of a temporary boat launch at King's Point in 1956, with a clear DNR intent to install a permanent launch site after April 1, 1991. seems to be adequate stimulus for LMCD, M;r sta and the other south shore/upper lake commun;ties to cooperate. seems logical that DNR, Metro Council, the regiona! imp:%:menting agency, LMCD and the municipalities might. all participate in finding the site, with nNR reserving 'ts intent and authority to proceed at King's Point 1 no specifics emerge. 5.5 Metropolitan Council staff shall report to the Metropolitt. Systems Com- mittee on activities on Lake Minnetonka by LMCD, SNRPD and other active agencies by Jan. 15, 1987. If no progress or inadequate progress is the case, as judged by Metropolitan Council, an increasingly directive proce- dure should begin. Three possibilities have been advanced for courses c' action in that event, others may exist. - Action could be initiated by Metropolitan Council and other interested partiies for legislation to reconstitute LMCD. In discussions about the possibility, MCTFLM suggested a new governing board, drawn from non - lake communities plus representatives of other interested governments and agencies, with a reduced number of representatives from the lake communities. Other changes in the LMCD's enabling legislation would also be needed. - Critical Area designa'ion is a second more directive alternative considered. - Metropolitan Significance Review was the third. In any event, the decision to proceed with a stronger directive to achieve implementation appears as an important part of this task force recom- mendation if timeiy action does not occur. b