03/22/1971 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

3/22/71 had considered a draft of a 38 -page bill which in part provides for a park reserve system, giving it the power of taxation up to 4 mills, the power of eminent domain and the power to contract with municipalities. The Association had voiced its opposition to this bill, mainly against the power of eminent domain and taxation. Mr. L'Allier offered a resolution to ve sent to the Metro Park Board, the Metro Council, legislators and subcommittees containing the following: 1. Vigorously opposing the bill S.F.12 37 (H.F.1678); 2. Going on record favoring legislation similar to that passed as relates to to the disposal of solid waste which would allow counties and their municipalities to formulate their own park plans; 3. Favoring having the Metro Park Board remain an advisory board only; 4. Favoring having metropolitan monies made available to counties to develop parks in conjunction with minucipal�ities so they can develop as we want them. Someone questioned whether we would ever have a park if the power went to the county and local governments. Don Marier felt that this point was well taken, but wanted action on the petition. Mr. L'Allier commented that he was giving some alternative action, that if such action were not taken and the bill agiving them eminent doamin passes, action on the petition would mean little anyway. 1 . L'Allier stated that the Council has the decision to make. It is normal pro- cedure for such matters to be passed onto other adivsory boards before action is taken by the Council. Our Park Board had requested hearing a Metro Park Board representative; the P&Z wants the Planner to bring his proposal to them for evaluation. The recom- mendations of these two boards must be considered before the final decision. Mr. L'Allier felt that the Council had the responsibility to listen to all sides of the story and would be acting irresponsibly if they did not do so. The Council will have a joint meeting with the P&Z, and the Park Board and the Planner before the decision is made. Mr. Bohjanen stated that he has listened to both sides of the story from mray .',,. people. ;Lino Lakes has an ordinance requiring that 10% of land area from devel- opments be set aside for park use; we should work with the developers for parks. He feels that because of the °petition signed by 600 strong that at this time he opposes the Metro Park system. The people have spoken. Mr. Bohjanen moved to deny to Park proposal. Mr. Jaworski noted that there was a motion on the floor already'concerning the resolution opposing the bill on the park reserve system. Mr. Jaworski moved to second the previous motion. Carried unanimously. Mr. Bohjanen restated his motion as follows: that Lino Lakes go on record as of tonight opposing the proposed Metropolitan Park Board plans for Lino Lakes. He felt by opposing the Metro Park Plan it would add strength to the previous vote of the council to go on record opposing the Metro Park Board bill. Mr. L'Allier stated that the Council was being asked to circumvent regular pro- cedures and say no. He stated that this ?rrr one reason that the Metro got so much strength because people say no without a second look. Charles Cape noted that some people have land which can be used either for park or for development. He would rather see the park come in rather than pay for the sewer and have to let his land go. He stated that the sewer is coming and that the Metro Sewer Board has the power to say when we get sewer. Mr. Cape felt that we should negotiate to try to hold some high land from the park; if the sewer comes through they may take more land than we would like. 1