Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Cook said that it is hard to keep track of changes and <br />extremely difficult to keep up without a common interest. He <br />said he had never received a call from someone suggesting that <br />he should be at a meeting, and he wondered whether lake <br />residents would hear of meetings if a member were not on that <br />board. Dahl said that maybe the council could be told, "you <br />can appoint three, and one should be a lakeshore resident." <br />Johnson said that they should look at what the council now <br />does. They try to get representation from all over the city <br />for the Park Board, but there are no guarantees. <br />Dahl said that she was concerned about the way the Joint <br />Powers Agreement was written that makes it look as though <br />there might be a time when it is no more and New Brighton <br />might not have any say.. She said she was looking for a state- <br />ment that New Brighton has a continuing interest. <br />Simons explained that there was a planning Joint Powers Agree- <br />ment, then a maintenance Joint Powers Agreement which assigned <br />responsibilities and costs. Then there is a Master Plan. The <br />"letter of understanding" is pr~~bably the only document that <br />addresses the Master Plan, he said, but it is a letter between <br />administrators. <br />Dahl asked whether the operations and maintenance plan ends <br />and what that really means. Simons said that it did, unless <br />extended or revised by mutual agreement between parties. <br />Dahl said that then the Master Plan, including operations and <br />maintenance, would be the ongoing document that could not be <br />changed without both parties being involved. Simons said the <br />Joint Powers Agreement was a tool to achieve something in the <br />Master Plan. If it did not ex^t, the responsibilities are <br />still laid out in the Master Flan. <br />Johnson said that then the Master Plan should state how it <br />can be revised. Simons said that it would be a part of the <br />document. It would say "this plan has been adopted by... and <br />will be amended by agreement of both parties." <br />Carlson argued that the Master Plan is not a legal document <br />like the Joint Powers Agreement and that a plan for developing <br />something bears no legal weight. It cannot spell out how <br />another contract is going to be amended. <br />Anderson said it would refer only to potential changes in the <br />Master Plan. The Joint Powers Agreement could be modified at <br />any point by either body. Carlson said that in five years <br />there would be nothing to amend. <br />-6- <br />