Agenda - Council - 10/13/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

- 2 - staff follows up on suspensions with calls and other assistance, but the burden of producing additional information rests primarily on local officials. Under the assumption that suspensions will be lifted without substantial delays, the Council has authorized the award of 1980-81 entitlement funds to con~nunities with suspended plans. Contract amendments have been sent to such communities for execution, but no contract becomes effective, and no grant funds will be disbursed, until the suspension has been lifted. A method of setting deadlines for lifting of suspensions is needed in order to bring a timely end to the process. Some local units have made estimates of when missing information would be provided. Most are no later than late September; the Council could use these estimates as firm deadlines. In other instances, specific dates have not been provided by local officials. A dead- line would need to be negotiated and then met. Future suspensi6ns would have to be treated similarly. From past experience it seems reasonable to limit the duration of suspensions to no more than two months unless there are exceptional circumstances and a longer suspension is specifically authorized by the Council. In fact, Elko and New Market were already granted longer extensions because completion of their 201 sewer studies are necessary and represented exceptional cases. Suspension deadlines can be enforced in one of two ways. One alternative is to resume the plan review without the necessary information, but with Council staff making any necessary assumptions. This does not seem to be a tenable alternative because Council staff would probably be asked to make assumptions on local matters about which they are unfamiliar and which are more properly made by local officials. The other alternative would be to treat local govern- ments not meeting their suspension deadlines as not having submitted a plan as required by statute. This means that these local governments would become ineligible for further planning assistance grants, A-95, and similar reviews could be affected negatively if not consistent with regional plans and policies, and ultimately, legal action could be taken. If a local unit fails to meet its deadline for having its suspension lifted, then the Council could cancel the grant contract amendment offer and rescind its 1980-81 grant award. Furthermore, a memo describing how the MLPA and local plans will be incorpor- ated into Council policies and procedures will be presented for Council consideration in the near future. Unsubmitted Plans A list of local governments that have not yet submitted comprehensive plans is attached. Staff recently contacted these units of government to ascertain why not, and the responses are included in t'he list. St. Mary's Point and South St. Paul could not be reached. Landfall had previously sent a letter stating that the City did not intend to prepare a plan because of its small size and unique character. All others have replied that plans are in process and will be submitted at various times over the next four months. A method for setting submittal deadlines is also needed to bring the process to a timely conclusion. Given that three extensions of grant eligibility have already been granted, it would seem unfair to not provide the same opportunity to other local governments as long as real progress is being made. All good things must come to an end, however, so it seems prudent to establish 30 days from the adoption of these §uidelines as the final submittal deadline. From information available i~o staff, it appears that such a deadline would only