Laserfiche WebLink
development activities in the counties adjacent ;,c the <br />metropolitan area and analysis of this development will likely <br />reveal the beginning stages of growth problems similar to the <br />problems which prompted the establishment of the Development <br />ramework and Mandatory Land Planning Act in the metropolitan <br />area. In fact, the development in adjacent counties may <br />accelerate due to the controlled growth policies within the <br />metropolitan area. <br />To correct any undersirable growth patterns which may cause the <br />unnecessary development or expansion of public service systems <br />such as water, wastewater treatment and transportation facilitis, <br />etc. in the area, and the negative impact that that de-velopr*.+ <br />may have upon the metropolitan area, the Association recomms-nds <br />that: <br />THE LEGISLATURE DESIGNATE A STATE AGENCY TO MONITOR AND ASSESS <br />UR°AN DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE ADJACENT COUNTIES AND REPORT TO THE <br />LEGISLATURE AND THE ADMINISTRATION ON THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF SUCH <br />URBAN DEVELOPMENT. <br />THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD PROVIDE THE TOOLS IE�ESSARY TO SOLVE THE <br />PROBLEM IF THE MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT INDICATES THAT A PROBLEM <br />EXISTS. <br />IF THE PROBLEM SOLUTION REQUIRES PUBLIC INVESTMENT, THEN THE COSTS <br />SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE BENIFITTING AREA INCLUDING SUCH HIDDEN <br />COSTS AS HIGHER TAXES, UTILITY FEES, TRANSPORTATION, ETC. <br />E"iTN'THOUGH THE AREA OF CONCERN IS NOT PART OF THE SEVEN COUNTY <br />METROPOLITAN AREA; DUE TO THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN <br />AREA, Ti1E METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SHOULD ASSIST AND COORDINATE WITH <br />THE DES16NATED STATE AGENCY IN THIS EVALUATION. <br />V-F MINNESOTA INTtiRGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW OF FEDF IL PROG"LM <br />t J.4 <br />?residential. Executive Order No. 12372 as amc-oded by Executive <br />�r:er No. 12416 eliminates the Federal A—i Review Process and <br />a;:thorizes each state to establish its own process. Minnesota <br />Sessions laws 1983, Charter 289, Section 49 authorized the State <br />Planning Agency to adopt a state process. Such review and state <br />processes must be recognized by the Federal Agencies. A State <br />:rater Governmental Review of Federal Programs process was adopted <br />,n 1984 and appears to be satisfactory. Any revision to the state <br />-ocess should be consistent with t`.e principles listed below. <br />F GUIDELINES FOR STATE PROCESS <br />STATE PROCESS (PROCEDURES) MU_1T BE APPLICABLE AND CONSISTENT <br />u'; A STATEWIDE BASIS WITH SPECIFIED CRITERIA TO DETERMINE WHICH <br />