Posted 8/15/01 Correction on power line issue To the editor: With so many speaking on such a complex issue, as was the case at the August 1, 2001 County Board meeting on the proposed power line ordinance, it is often difficult to get an accurate account of everyoneís position. I believe my position on an issue was inaccurately stated in the article in the August 8, 2001 edition of the press and I want to correct it. The proposed draft ordinance that went to the County Board that night was what the Planning Commissioner had passed on and asked be adopted. The Task Force and Planning Commission had differed on several issues, and it was the Task Forceís proposed amendments to that draft that generated the discussion before the County Board. Both Mr. Eric Swanson and myself were in favor of the Board adopting the draft ordinance without the recommended amendments. The major amendment the Task Force wanted was the ìneedî provision. From the outset I agreed with Mr. Swanson that the need provision should not be included. The article incorrectly stated that Mr. Swanson and I differed on the point. It was, as the article correctly noted, attorney Carol Overland who encouraged the Board to include the need provision. Mr. Swanson and I did talk during a break in the meeting. Prior to the break there had been discussion as far as what harm would it do to just put the need provision in if it wasnít on its face illegal. What we discussed during the break, and what I expressed when the meeting reconvened, was there wouldnít be any harm in putting the provision in if it wasnít used. While Mr. Swanson did educate me on many of the complex legal issues surrounding the ordinance, I had already concurred with him about not putting the need provision in and I did not change my position on that point during the break or at any time during the meeting. Although it was not my recommendation to put the need provision in the ordinance, I believe if the other provisions of the ordinance are applied to applications and decisions made accordingly, inclusion of the provision shouldnít matter. Sincerely, Ted Alliegro Chisago County Attorney (Editorís note: I appreciate Mr. Alliegro bringing this to my attention and offer my apologies for the error.) ©Post Review