Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/03/2004 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA e CITY OF LINO LAKES Wednesday November 3, 2004 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 5:30 P.M. 1. Growth Management Ordinance Amendment /Conservation Development, Jeff Shoenbauer, Michael Grochala, Jeff Smyser 2. Extension of VLAWMO Joint Powers Agreement (see regular Agenda Item 6A) 3. Consider Rice Creek Watershed District Board Nomination 4. Regular Agenda Items 5. Adjourn Revised 11/01/04 ajb 9:35 a.m. • PAGE 1 • • • WS -1 WORK SESSION MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Mike Grochala, Jeff Smyser Date: November 3, 2004 Re: Work Session Item #1: Conservation Development Amendments To Growth Management Policy Background The City Council approved the Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail System Plan in August. The top priority of the plan is the creation and preservation of greenways. This echoes the direction in the comprehensive plan to establish greenway corridors. The main way to achieve this is the use of conservation development. Conservation development is a means to achieve higher public values than would be the case under a conventional development approach. Toward this end, we are proposing revisions to the growth management policy. The spirit of the revisions is to encourage the type of development that meets the highest goals of the comprehensive plan and the recently completed parks and open space plan. The community has expressed the desire to preserve open space and natural features. Slowing growth may delay the destruction of these elements, but it does not preserve them. Conservation development results in higher quality development that preserves the natural features and open space. By giving the City Council more discretion under the growth management policy, the expectation is that developers will be encouraged to work collaboratively with the city on achieving the highest public values for their private developments. This discretion would only be applied in cases where the developer of property successfully collaborates with the City and submits a conservation development proposal that includes public values that exceed those achievable under a conventional development approach. The determination as to whether or not the project reaches this threshold will be at the sole discretion of the City Council. "Conventional development" is defined as a development proposal that meets the minimum requirements of the City's ordinances regulating subdivision and platting, zoning, street standards, and other pertinent requirements. "Conservation development" refers to a • • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 2 collaborative process in which certain stipulated public values are sought in exchange for greater flexibility on general development requirements and the growth limits defined under the policy. The Fox Den Acres project offers a good opportunity to implement the new parks and open space plan through the use of a conservation development. The project is going through a very collaborative process that includes city staff, the Rice Creek Watershed District, and the developer. Instead of asking "does the project meet the requirements ?" we have been asking "what is the best design ?" The design includes such things as filling and moving lower quality wetlands in order to preserve and increase higher quality wetlands and upland areas. The overall gain in public value will be positive. Options for Amending the Policy The adopted ordinance is attached, with amendment options added. Added language is shown in underlined text. Deleted language is shown in strikeout text. We have presented two options. Both would add a new Section 3 of the ordinance. • Option 1 would exempt conservation development from the growth restrictions. That is, a conservation development would be subject to neither the annual MUSA allocation limit (36 acres per year) nor the units restriction (147 per year or 1029 total for Stage 1). • Option 2 allows a conservation development to final plat lots /units two years in advance of its approved phasing plan. That is, it would still have a phasing plan but the number of lots /units in the phasing plans could be moved ahead by two years. In effect, the first three years of units could be final platted in year one. With either option: The Stage 1 and Stage 2 growth boundaries still apply. These are the areas within which growth is to occur. The total MUSA reserve for stage 1 would still apply: 300.7 residential acres for stage 1. We currently have 130 acres remaining. We could not exceed this because this is what we received from the Metropolitan Council, based on the amount listed in the comprehensive plan. The prohibition on premature development would still apply. The subdivision ordinance prohibits premature development to ensure adequate infrastructure exists to support new residential development. All growth restrictions would still apply for conventional development. In fact, the proposed amendments include eliminating the discretionary 20% additional annual growth for conventional development. Amending Growth Management Policy page 3 • Advisory Board Review The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on the policy amendments on October 13th The Environmental Board considered them on October 27th. The boards considered both of the amendment options. Both boards recommended approval of Option 1, exempting conservation development from annual limits to give the City Council more discretion in approving housing above the stipulated growth limits. Timeline We are presenting the draft amendments now to allow time for city council consideration and feedback. We anticipate bringing the first reading to the council at the November 22nd meeting. We hope to have the Fox Den Acres project on the same agenda. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies The comprehensive plan includes extensive lists of goals, policies, recommendations, and the like. These are intended to guide implementation of the comprehensive plan. We have assembled a list of some of these guiding statements that are relevant to conservation development. They are attached to this memo. Of course, one of the main issues to consider is the limit on growth, listed as a growth management policy on page 27: 9. Limit residential growth to an average of 147 units per year, carrying a three year supply lot inventory. The MUSA reserve was based on land consumption, which in turn was based on averaging 147 units per year at a density of 2.5 units per acre. The limit on the allocation of MUSA acres remains: the proposed amendment does not change it. The number of units will be regulated indirectly, through the allocation of MUSA. While the annual limit on platted units /lots has delayed the extent of development, it has not lead to achieving the public values related to open space and natural amenities that are described in the comprehensive plan. The minimal development allowed by the unit limit prevents larger scale planning as well as the economic ability to achieve the environmental goals so important to the community and included in the new parks and open space plan. A good sampling of those environmental goals, as expressed in the comprehensive plan, are attached at the end of this memo. • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 4 CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 01 -03 ORDINANCE CREATING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY The City Council of Lino Lakes hereby ordains: Section 1 Findings The Lino Lakes City Council makes the following findings: 1. The City of Lino Lakes adopted a comprehensive plan that includes goals and policies to guide planning and the growth of the city. 2. Managing growth through the orderly provision of infrastructure and other means promotes the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. It is in the best interests of the public to create rational, cost effective means of managing growth so that it will be orderly, efficient, and environmentally sound. 3. Unplanned growth does not meet community needs and is injurious to the public health, safety, and welfare. Inadequately planned growth has created and may create or aggravate negative conditions such as: a. overburdened public facilities b. underutilized public facilities resulting in wasteful investment of public resources c. an inadequate variety of housing choices that does not meet community needs d. environmentally detrimental development projects and patterns 4. The comprehensive plan establishes future land uses, staged growth areas, growth goals, and a Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) reserve for the city. 5. The Stage 1 growth area is the geographic limit for growth prior to year 2010. The Stage 2 area is for growth from 2010 to 2020. 6. The MUSA reserve obtained with the comprehensive plan includes 359 acres for Stage 1, and 909 acres for Stage 2. The MUSA reserve also includes a balance of 15.7 acres designated for residential use left over from the 1995 MUSA reserve. The total Stage 1 MUSA reserve therefore is 374.7 acres. 7. There is undeveloped land within the existing MUSA. 8. A growth management policy is necessary, in addition to official controls such as the zoning and subdivision ordinances, to implement the comprehensive plan and promote the public health, safety, and welfare. Amending Growth Management Policy page 5 9. The comprehensive plan designates the area in the southeast quadrant of the I -35W /Lake Drive interchange as "The Village." The intent of the Village is to create a focus for community and civic identity through the integration of a mix of land uses. In doing so, the Village will provide for intense land use, for compact and efficient development, and increase the range of housing opportunities. The Village has received funding under the Livable Communities program, established by MN Statute 473.25 — 473.255, because of its intent to fulfill numerous goals of that program. 10. The growth management policy should allow the City Council reasonable discretion to approve housing units in any given year above the stipulated growth limits in cases where the development proposal results in significant and discernable public values above and beyond those achievable under conventional development. Section 2 Growth Management Policy The Lino Lakes City Council hereby establishes a growth management policy with the following provisions: 1. Promoting development within the existing MUSA is preferable to expanding the developing area of the City by granting MUSA reserve acres. This preference is intended to promote the cost - effective use of public investment by maximizing the utilization of existing infrastructure. 2. New growth prior to year 2010 shall occur only in a Stage 1 growth area. However, a Stage 1 growth area does not grant rights to MUSA reserve acres and development approval. 3. Premature development shall not be allowed. This applies to all development proposals, inside the existing MUSA as well as those needing MUSA reserve. The development is premature if it does not meet the conditions established in Section 1002 -6 of the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 1000 of the City Code). 4. The 374.7 acres of MUSA reserve for Stage 1 (pre -2010) shall be designated for new residential, commercial and industrial development as follows and as shown in Attachment A: a. Residential: i. A total of 300.7 MUSA reserve acres is designated for residential development for Stage 1. The allocation of MUSA reserve shall not exceed this total prior to year 2010. To do so requires amendment of the comprehensive plan. ii. The annual target is to allocate no more than 36 acres annually in the years 2003 through 2009. While this is the target, it is an annual average. At the discretion of • Amending Growth Management Policy page 6 the City Council, the MUSA reserve acres allocated for any one year may vary by 20% over or below the target. Exceeding the MUSA reserve target will necessitate reducing MUSA allocation for future years. b. Commercial /Industrial: A total of 74 MUSA reserve acres is designated for C/I development. These C/I MUSA acres can be granted at any time prior to year 2010. There is no annual limit for C/I MUSA. 5. The goal is to limit new growth in the city to an average of 147 new housing units per year: 1029 units in the seven years including 2003 -2009, inclusive. This includes all residential growth: both within the existing MUSA and in areas that would need MUSA reserve. While this is the target, it is an annual average. At the discretion of the City Council, the number of lots approved for any one year may vary by 20% over or below the target. Exceeding the new growth target will necessitate reducing the number of lots available for future years. This 147 growth target refers to units in future plats, not to units on lots in final plats approved prior to 2003. 6. No single development project should be awarded an entire year's number of new housing units. This requirement is intended to: a. avoid or minimize potential monopoly price effects b. promote timely development: one project often will not be able to build all 147 in one year c. promote housing diversity d. avoid inefficient concentration of infrastructure expansion that could impede financial return on investments elsewhere in the city e. distribute and minimize potential negative impacts of development f. promote fairness by distributing growth among several projects while observing the goal for new growth 7. An amendment of the comprehensive plan shall be required if, in order to accommodate a specific development project, the annual target for new growth (units /year) or residential MUSA reserve allocation (acres /year) would be exceeded by more than 20 %. The City Council shall consider such an amendment only if the specific development project will promote a clearly identified public purpose. The public purpose may include but is not limited to: a) provision of housing unit variety that contributes toward meeting housing goals, such as medium density, high- density, and mixed -use developments in locations designated for them in the comprehensive plan b) provision of infrastructure that will provide benefits beyond the project site, in accordance with City transportation, sewer, or water plans, that is not financially feasible without exceeding the target c) preservation of environmental features that would not occur without exceeding the target • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 7 d) provision of economic benefits to the City that would not occur without exceeding the target 8. Use of Stage 2 MUSA reserve acres prior to year 2010 shall require amendment of the comprehensive plan. 9. All preliminary plats and residential development greater than 50 lots/units must have, as condition of approval, a phasing plan that establishes: a. a schedule for final platting a specified number of lots /units on an annual basis b. specifies the location of and number of lots /units in each phase (final plat). 10. The target for the maximum number of lots in each phase is 50. 11. The City will maintain an inventory of approved phasing plans indicating the number of units /lots scheduled for final plat approval in future years. 12. The City will not approve a new project's preliminary plat if, according to the phasing plan inventory (final platting schedule), a new project could not final plat its first phase within one year of preliminary plat approval without exceeding the MUSA or new growth goals. 13. An approved phasing plan or approved conservation development preliminary plat is a commitment by the City to approve final plats and grant MUSA reserve acres according to the phasing plan or conservation development preliminary plat. MUSA reserve is actually granted at the same time as final plat approval. The phasing plan does not in any way eliminate the requirements of the subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and other official controls, as may be amended. 14. MUSA reserve acreage to be granted shall be the acres of buildable area only. 15. Allocating or granting MUSA reserve within the Stage 1 growth area in accordance with a phasing plan or approved conservation development preliminary plat for the project is an action that implements the comprehensive plan: it is not an amendment of the comprehensive plan. Allocating MUSA reserve shall require the same majority vote by the City Council as is required for a rezoning. 16. This growth management policy shall not apply to the area of "The Village," in the southeast quadrant of the I -35W /Lake Drive interchange. 17. The City shall review this growth management policy on an annual basis. • • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 8 Section 3 — Growth Management Policy for Conservation Development The Lino Lakes City Council hereby establishes a policy to promote the use of conservation development as a means to achieve the goals of the Growth Management Policy; Comprehensive Plan, Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail System Plan; and the Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development. The provisions of this policy include: 1. For the purposes of this ordinance, "conventional development" is defined as a development proposal that meets the minimum requirements of the City's ordinances regulating development including but not limited to subdivision and platting (Ordinance No. 04 -03), zoning (Ordinance No. 08 -03), street construction standards (City Code Chapter 302), and other pertinent requirements. 2. For the purposes of this ordinance, "conservation development" is defined as a collaborative process which results in a development plan, typically a planned unit development, in which certain stipulated public values are achieved in exchange for greater flexibility on general development requirements and the growth limits defined under Section 2 of this policy. Amendment Option 1: 3. The growth management policy allows the City Council reasonable discretion to approve housing units in any given year in excess of the stipulated growth limits of Section 2, paragraphs 4.a.ii., 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 of this ordinance in cases where a conservation development proposal results in significant and discernable public values above and beyond those achievable under conventional development. These public values include, but are not limited to: a. Preserving more natural open space than required under current ordinances and development policies b. Reducing the extent of impervious surfaces and size of the development footprint c. Restoring /enhancing ecological systems on the site as part of the development process d. Protecting off -site ecological systems through increased buffering e. Ensuring long -term natural resource stewardship through an endowment program sponsored by the Developer f. Providing public park and trail opportunities consistent with or in excess of the System Plan g. Managing stormwater (flow rates and quality) using natural infiltration and ecologically - based approaches • • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 9 h. Preserving the open space aesthetic to which community residences have become accustomed i. Maintaining natural buffer between established and new developments 4. If, at the discretion of the City Council, a development proposal does not demonstrate that significant public values are being realized above and beyond those achievable under a conventional development approach, then the provisions of Section 2 apply. 5. Recommendations to approve a development proposal by the Environmental Board, Park Board, and Planning and Zoning Board will be part of demonstrating that significant public values are being realized. 6. Conservation development, like all residential development, is subject to the staged growth areas as stated in Section 2, paragraph 2., and the total Stage 1 MUSA reserve maximum in Section 2, paragraph 4.a.i. Section 4 Every section, provision, or part of this Ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision, or part thereof to the extent that if any section, provision, or part of this Ordinance shall be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not invalidate any other section, provision, or part thereof. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall judge invalid the application of any provision of this Ordinance to a particular property, building, or structure, such judgment shall not affect other properties, buildings or structures. This ordinance shall be in force and effect upon its adoption and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 27th day of January, 2003. ATTEST: Ann Blair, City Clerk John J. Bergeson, Mayor 1 • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 10 ATTACHMENT A CITY OF LINO LAKES GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY The following tables describe how the annual MUSA reserve target was derived and indicate the result for year 2003. MUSA reserve need, as calulated for the comprehensive plan unmet demand existing need residential 635 350 285 commercial /industrial 274 200 74 909 550 359 residential MUSA reserve total acres resid. C/I remaining balance pre -2002 new for Stage 1 15.7 15.7 359.0 285.0 74.0 total 374.7 300.7 74.0 Clearwater Creek 5th Addn 20.8 -20.8 Stoneybrook 54.7 Stoneybrook 2002 27.0 -27.0 Stoneybrook 2003 27.7 balance annual residential MUSA (2003 to 2009 is 7 years) 252.9 74.0 36.1 2003 allocation Stoneybrook 2003 36.1 -27.7 available for 2003 8.4 • • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 11 Amendment Option 2: 3. The growth management policy allows the City Council reasonable discretion to approve housing units in any given year in excess of the stipulated growth limits of Section 2, paragraphs 4, 5, and 7 of this ordinance in cases where a conservation development proposal results in significant and discernable public values above and beyond those achievable under conventional development. The project must still have a phasing plan, but the final platting of lots /units can be advanced by two years so that phases one, two and three could be final platted in year one, phase four units then could be final platted in year two, and so on. The maximum number of lots /units in the City for Stage 1 shall still apply. The public values include, but are not limited to: J. Preserving more natural open space than required under current ordinances and development policies k. Reducing the extent of impervious surfaces and size of the development footprint 1. Restoring /enhancing ecological systems on the site as part of the development process m. Protecting off -site ecological systems through increased buffering n. Ensuring long -term natural resource stewardship through an endowment program sponsored by the Developer o. Providing public park and trail opportunities consistent with or in excess of the System Plan p. Managing stormwater (flow rates and quality) using natural infiltration and ecologically - based approaches q. Preserving the open space aesthetic to which community residences have become accustomed r. Maintaining natural buffer between established and new developments 4. If, at the discretion of the City Council, a development proposal does not demonstrate that significant public values are being realized above and beyond those achievable under a conventional development approach, then the provisions of Section 2 apply. 5. Recommendations to approve a development proposal by the Environmental Board, Park Board, and Planning and Zoning Board will be part of demonstrating that significant public values are being realized. Amending Growth Management Policy page 12 • 6. Conservation development, like all residential development, is subject to the staged growth areas as stated in Section 2, paragraph 2., and the total Stage 1 MUSA reserve maximum in Section 2, paragraph 4.a.i. • • e Amending Growth Management Policy page 13 GOALS AND POLICY STATEMENTS FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTRODUCTION (p. 4) The rapid pace of growth since 1990 has raised local concerns with regard to the following issues: 1. Growth is changing the character of Lino Lakes from a predominately rural community to a suburban community. The Comprehensive Plan must outline strategies for managing growth in a manner that protects the natural resources of the community and preserves open space corridors in an effort to maintain the open character of the City. ENVIRONMENTAL Lino Lakes is rich in natural environmental amenities including lakes, wetlands and wooded areas. The map on the following page illustrates the extent that Lino Lakes is comprised of lakes, wetlands, and hydric soils. These environmental amenities along with the open rural character are highly valued by the residents of Lino Lakes. In this regard, the following issues have been identified relating to development and its impact on the City's environmental features and rural character: New development must be integrated with the environment features of Lino Lakes. New development will be required to be site sensitive with regard to subdivisions, land use type and site design to avoid detrimental impact on local environmental resources. 2. The preservation of quality environmental amenities and open spaces is necessary to preserve • the attractive open character of the City. LAND USE (p. 11) ... Through the various neighborhood meetings, the following land use issues and opportunities were identified. 2. Lino Lakes is in transition from a historically rural community to a suburban community. Concerns have been expressed over the changing character of the community and the potential loss of the rural atmosphere the City now offers. In this regard, the protection of open space and natural areas is viewed as a critical element in the future land use planning for the City of Lino Lakes. POLICY PLAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (p. 22) Goals 1. Protect the environmental quality of Lino Lakes while accommodating moderate growth. 2. Preserve the open character of Lino Lakes through the preservation of natural open space and the establishment of greenway corridors. 3. Promote biodiversity through the use of native plant materials and other materials where appropriate. • 4. Integrate new development with the City's natural environment in a compatible manner,. • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 14 5. Maintain and when feasible, improve the City's water resources. Policies General 3. Integrate new development to the natural characteristics of the land to enhance the development through the preservation of attractive natural amenities (i.e., wetlands, waterways, wooded areas, slopes, etc.). Consider new development regulations that serve to preserve unique natural areas. 5. Promote greenway planning to protect environmentally sensitive areas of the City, to preserve natural area and open space, and to define neighborhoods: a. Generally define greenways in the Comprehensive Plan. More detailed definition of greenway boundaries will occur through the City's Environmental Survey /Management Plan and the development process. b. Greenways should be of a size and configuration to protect the natural amenities within the greenway, provide wildlife corridors and provide linkages to the Chain of Lakes Regional Park, other designated greenways, natural areas, and other cities. c. Greenways will be protected through the implementation of the City's Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan, conservation easements and development regulations including zoning, subdivision, shoreland, floodplain, and wetland preservation. d. Uplands within greenways may be preserved through voluntary donation, conservation easements, park land dedication or the transfer of development rights to the areas of the City more suitable for development. e. The City needs to develop a policy on design, ownership, maintenance and funding of greenways. Some greenways might not have trails. f. Pursue available grant programs designed to assist the City's acquisition and development of local greenways. g. Restore greenways where necessary to improve their ecological health. h. Ensure that greenways serve all community residents through the protection of view sheds and the provision of pedestrian trails within the greenway corridor. Pedestrian trails will be located and designed within the greenways in a manner that will not degrade the natural features of the greenway. Create an awareness of the value and importance of greenways through community education, volunteerism in greenway maintenance, and citizen stewardship activities. Vegetation 5. Promote the use of native grasses, forbes, shrubs and trees in development site restoration. Storm Water/Wetlands /Drainage 2. Restrict or prohibit development on wetlands, floodplains and other natural features that perform important environmental functions in their natural state. Where desirable and practical, maintain such natural features in a condition for appropriate storm water system or recreational uses. • Amending Growth Management Policy page 15 3. Prohibit development on or alteration of natural drainage system components where storm water can be adequately managed without construction of storm sewer. 6. Promote higher quality surface water treatment facilities through the use of infiltration and bioretention where appropriate. GROWTH MANAGEMENT (p. 26) Goals 1. Manage growth and land use development in a manner that is environmentally responsible to maintain the open and "green" nature of the City that the City's citizens prize so highly. COMMUNITY FACILITIES (p. 39) Policies Parks and Open Space 1. Implement the goals, policies and recommendations of the 1992 Lino Lakes Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide, as may be amended. 2. Utilize the City -wide environmental inventory and management plan that defines the integration of land use plans with local natural resources. • Establish greenway corridors to protect environmentally sensitive areas of the community and preserve the open character of the City. • • WS -3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 3 Date: Council Work Session, Wednesday, June 9, 2004 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Expiration of Term of Rice Creek Watershed District Manager • Background The City of Lino Lakes has been given official notice from Anoka County of the January 17, 2005 expiration of the term of Mr. Harvey Karth on the Rice Creek Watershed District Board of Directors. Minnesota Statutes provide an opportunity for municipalities and towns within the watershed district to submit a list of names at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the manager's term, from which the county board shall appoint a manager. This process is described in more detail in the attached correspondence from Anoka County. Council Direction Staff is seeking any direction that the Council may have related to submitting a list of persons for appointment, a letter of recommendation, etc. Attachment 1. Anoka County letter, dated October 14, 2004 • 1 JOHN "JAY" McLINDEN County Administrator ✓1-k, 4o L (,) Lc (Cs & I' ci',P COUNTY OF ANOKA The Honorable John J. Bergeson Mayor, City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATION GOVERNMENT CENTER 2100 3RD AVENUE • ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 -2265 (763) 323 -5700 October 14, 2004 RE: Rice Creek Watershed District Appointment Dear Mayor Bergeson: • In accordance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. §103B.227, Anoka County in late October 2004 will publish notice of a future vacancy due to the expiration of a term on the Rice Creek Watershed District Board of Managers. The notice publication requirement applies because Rice Creek Watershed District is considered to be a watershed management organization. The published notice must state that persons interested in being appointed may submit their names to the appointing authority which is the county board for a watershed district appointment. For your information, a copy of the notice which is to be published is attached. In appointing a manager to the Rice Creek Watershed District, Minn. Stat. §103D.311 is also applicable. This statute requires a county board, upon the expiration of a term, to appoint managers for a watershed district from a list of persons nominated jointly or severally by the towns and municipalities within the district if a list(s) is submitted 60 days before the manager's term of office expires or to appoint a manager who resides in a city or town that fails to submit a list. If there is a desire to jointly submit a list for the manager appointment, you may wish to confer with affected cities and town and jointly submit the list. The cities and town with territory located in the Rice Creek Watershed District are Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Fridley, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Spring Lake Park, and Columbus. • In order for names submitted to the county to be considered a list under the statutory definition, the list must contain the names of at least three nominees eligible to be appointed. To be eligible for an appointment, a nominee must reside within the watershed district boundaries, be eligible to vote in the district, and not be a public officer of the county, state, or federal government (except that a soil and water conservation supervisor can be appointed). In making watershed appointments, there is an additional factor which is to be considered by a county board. Minn. Stat. §103D.311 requires watershed district managers to be appointed to fairly FAX: 763 - 323 -5682 Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer TDD /TTY: 763 - 323 -5289 October 14, 2004 Page 2 represent the various hydrologic areas within the watershed district by residence of the manager appointed. The appointee whose term will expire on January 17, 2005, is Harvey Karth, who resides in hydrologic area 4 portion of the Rice Creek Watershed District. The other current managers, appointed by three different counties, live in hydrologic areas 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Rice Creek Watershed District. A map with the location of current board members highlighted is being forwarded to the Lino Lakes manager /clerk. If you have any questions regarding this appointment process, you may contact Pam McCabe, Assistant County Attorney at 763 - 323 -5667. Sincerely John "Jay" McLinden County Administrator JM:paa Enclosure cc: Lino Lakes Manager /Clerk Pam McCabe, Assistant County Attorney Patsy Anundsen, Administration Office Administrator • • • • • October 14, 2004 Page 2 represent the various hydrologic areas within the watershed district by residence of the manager appointed. The appointee whose teini will expire on January 17, 2005, is Harvey Karth, who resides in hydrologic area 4 portion of the Rice Creek Watershed District. The other current managers, appointed by three different counties, live in hydrologic areas 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Rice Creek Watershed District. A map with the location of current board members highlighted is being forwarded to the Lino Lakes manager /clerk. If you have any questions regarding this appointment process, you may contact Pam McCabe, Assistant County Attorney at 763 -323 -5667. John "Jay" McLinden County Administrator JM:paa Enclosure cc: Lino Lakes Manager /Clerk Pam McCabe, Assistant County Attorney Patsy Anundsen, Administration Office Administrator • • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Minn. Stat. §103B.227 and §103D.311 that a vacancy will occur on the Rice Creek Watershed District Board of Managers due to the expiration on January 17, 2005, of the term of Harvey Karth. Term of appointment is for three years. Managers are eligible to be reappointed. Persons interested in being appointed to serve on the Rice Creek Watershed District Board of Managers may submit their names for consideration to the Anoka County Board of Commissioners, the appointing authority. Minn. Stat. §103D.311 permits the cities and towns in the district to submit a list(s) of nominations to the county board. If a valid list(s) containing at least three eligible nominees for a manager's position is submitted at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the terms, the Anoka County Board of Commissioners is required to make appointments either from the list(s) or to appoint a manager who resides in a town or city that fails to submit a list. Since a list may be submitted, persons interested in being considered for appointment may wish to contact their city or town to request to be included on a list of nominations. In the absence of a valid list, the Anoka County Board of Commissioners may appoint any voting resident of the Rice Creek Watershed District who is not a public officer of the county, state or federal government. ssistant County Attorney Jo "Jay" cLi den County Administrator PUBLISH IN: Anoka County Union, October 29, 2003 Forest Lake Times, October 28, 2003 Quad Community Press, October 26, 2003 cc: Bobbie Koehler Pam McCabe Jay McLinden Patsy Anundsen • Rice Creek Watershed Districts Roger K. Aiken LEGEND COMMISSIONER DISTRICTS MI HYDROLOGIC AREAS Q COUNTY BOUNDARIES Q CITY BOUNDARIES BLAINE CENTERVILLE CIRCLE PINES COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COLUMBUS FRIDLEY EN HAM LAKE LEXINGTON LINO LAKES SPRING LAKE PARK