Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 11, 1992 4 <br />fact the letter implied she did not know her own job either. <br />I strongly disagree with that tone in that letter. <br />Mayor Johnson: I did not want to send that letter. I did <br />not want this to go outside of the City. As I stated in <br />that letter that is my position, and I think that would be <br />your position as well on the Council. This is a policy <br />issue. We must resolve. It is our plan and not the Met <br />Council's plan. We just dealt with this at a council <br />meeting where we discussed perhaps going to an <br />Administrative law judge or whatever to resolve the issues. <br />Then to have this come back in as kind of an unofficial <br />official confirmation. As much as anything Dick Thompson, <br />in my opinion, is going to address a policy issue should get <br />clearance from his appointed council. If he addresses it, <br />should address the results of that to our Council and not <br />this unofficial thing --just a letter to Mary. When we get <br />something like that, I would like distribution of that <br />mailed now. I want mail that is policy oriented, whether <br />addressed to her, that is council actionable, I want it in <br />my mail box when it comes in. <br />M/S/P Williams/Dick Johnson - to direct the City <br />Administrator to compose a letter and read it at the hearing <br />on April 13th covering at least the following three points: <br />1. The official City of Lake Elmo position is that the <br />1990-2010 comp plan document is the official comp plan for <br />the City of Lake Elmo. <br />2 The letter written by Mayor Johnson and Councilman Mottaz <br />was written by them as individuals and in no way reflects <br />city policy. <br />3. That the City is embarrassed by the confusion caused by <br />this letter and request that the Metropolitan Council <br />proceed with the MUSA Extension application using the 1990- <br />2010 comp plan as the base. <br />Mayor Johnson: Well, I'm sorry but it can't be stated <br />because as you know there is a difference of opinion as to <br />what is the comprehensive plan. Now we do agree that the <br />comp plan map, the 1990-2010 map that accompanies that <br />amendment, is a specific amendment to the comp plan map that <br />existed prior to that time. I have no problem with it and I <br />don't think Jess does either. But to read that would be a <br />falsehood because that is not the opinion of this Council. <br />This Council must vote by a 4/5ths vote to approve a <br />comp plan amendment. I think we made it quite clear in that <br />letter as to what two of these council members believe that <br />vote to be and I think the evidence is quite clear as to <br />what was accomplished. Reading that before the group on the <br />13th would do more to split to insure a recognition by the <br />