07-23-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and that the LMCD does not concede the right of the Metropolitan Council to regulate its affairs in connection with the matters in the plan.” RESPONSE: Orono's advise is noted. But we cannot help but conclude that the advise is as faulty as the misunderstandings and arguments upon which it is founded. The LMCD submitted the Management Program for review to the Metropolitan Council at the same time it was distributed to other agencies. In that, Orono's concerns are not timely. It is too late to do it your way. Second, the program was submitted under M.S. 473.175 Subd. 1, in accordance with our interpretation of the law. Page 2, first full paragraph. "However, if the Board of the LMCD disagrees with the views of the City of Orono, on authority and nature of submission, we believe it is essential that the views which the Board does have on the ability of the Metropolitan Council to control it be explained to the interested public and the statement specifically included in the plan before submission. In particular, the LMCD should state in the plan both the legal and intended effects on future actions of the LMCD and the rights of the other interested parties once the plan is submitted to Metropolitan Council control." RESPONSE; We believe these matters are already satisfactorily addressed in the Management Program. Based on all other comments received on the Program, it appears that the City of Orono is the only interested party. recommend no change in the Management Program. Page 2, second paragraph. "In this connection we believe the LMCD should also spell out what the compromise was that is referred to on page 5 of the report. What was LMCD's position before sits position was compromised? Why did it compromise?" RESPONSE: The compromise was for the LMCD to lead the Management Program effort, that it be concluded in two years, that the Systems Committee of the Metropolitan Council would abandon its consideration of an independent planning process. he LMCD wanted to complete the study in three years, the Metropolitan Council wanted 18 mon^.is. The compromise at two years represented a small price'to pay for the support and participation of the Metropolitan Council. We recommend no change to the Management Program. This issue is too trivial. and Page 2, Paragraph 3, Plan Focus and Statutory Authority. "In our original draft submission, we noted that we believe that the