Laserfiche WebLink
• the LMCD make recommendations for a non -local source of funding for provid- <br />ing general public access to the lake, <br />• the boating safety fund should be increased, <br />• the LMCD tax levy should be outside the Lakeshore communities' levy limits <br />and should be levied directly, <br />• the LMCD should convene meetings to identify and analyze overlapping au- <br />thorities on the lake, <br />• specific changes in the LMCD authority, <br />• the ORR should continue its present activities on the lake, <br />• there should be expanded monitoring of recreational use, and <br />• data on potential increases in all types of access is needed. <br />This study, when coupled witF the 1983 Task Force Report and interviews with <br />public officials involved in lake issues provide the basis for identificatio• <br />of problems and issues to be addressed in the Management Plan. <br />MiTRODOLDGT <br />The methodology used to prepare this scope of work included three major el- <br />ements. The first task was to review the enabling legislation of each agency <br />directly responsible with managing the resources of Lake Minnetonka. Of partic- <br />ular importance was the LMCD, DRR, the Lake Minnetonka Watershed District and <br />the municipalities on the Lake. The second major effort involved contacting <br />management agencies around the United States who manage heavily used, largely <br />urbanised recreation areas. this effort concentrated on how these agencies ad- <br />dressed problems thoy encounter that are similar with Lake Minnetonka. The fi- <br />nal step was interviewing officials in municipalities, key regional agencies <br />and state agencies most involved in Lake Minnetonka from a regulatory or plan- <br />ning perspective. Representatives of boating, fishing and sailing interests <br />were also included. <br />