Laserfiche WebLink
1380 FROST :WEN it ?1.APLL\V'OOI), )JI\XESO'L\55109 <br />OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER <br />770 -4525 fif, fh,{l{ <br />November 20, 1981 <br />Mr. John Rutford <br />Metropolitan Council <br />300 Metro Square <br />7th & Robert Streets <br />St. Paul, MN 55101 <br />Dear Mr. Rutford: <br />I must take umbrage at the statement attributed to you in the November, 1981 <br />Metro Monitor. Your comment that "A -95 reviews may be under fire because <br />they haven't worked well in other parts of the country, but studies show we <br />use them very responsibly in this Area. A -95 reviews have led to <br />identification of a lot of regional problems. Just one example is the re- <br />cent 'lake overflow' compromise between St. Paul and eight suburban <br />communities" is incorrect. <br />As far as the suburbs are concerned there has been no "compromise ". Rather, <br />there has been an action by the Metropolitan Council which is still not <br />acceptable to the suburban cities. <br />Consequently, we view the use of A -95 review in this matter as an abuse of <br />the regulations rather than as an example of why A -95 review should be <br />continued. <br />It is apparent to us that A -95 was used for purposes not intended. The <br />result has been considerable added expense to our residents because of the <br />Metropolitan Council's unilateral extension of their authority under A -95. <br />Examples like this of the use of A -95 are certainly reasons for opposition <br />to continued review by the Metropolitan Council. In short, we do not consider <br />your example as a "responsible" use of A -95 reviews. <br />BRE:vl <br />cc: Gatti, Joynes, Andr <br />Council <br />Samuel Pierce, Secr <br />Sincerely, <br />y <br />Barry k -Evans <br />r•.-„ mtn, <br />ager <br />(1 , Urban <br />Urban Development, Washington,DC <br />