Laserfiche WebLink
J C <br />Each year, NMMA. compiles a list of legislative items that are important to NMMA and its members. The result is the <br />Legislative Action Plan that provides the association's perspective on issues to assist in discussion of legislation <br />impacting our region. NMMA.'s advocates and lobbyists utilize the action plan and the resulting priorities in conversations <br />with legislators throughout the session as well when attending events in the North Metro. Members of NMMA also use <br />the action plan as a tool in their conversations with their local representatives. <br />NMMA is seeking your feedback as it updates the Legislative Action Plan for 2019. For your review, the 2018 <br />Legislative Action Plan with comments on the progress of individual items is attached. <br />Use the following form to provide any ideas you may have regarding the legislative priorities you think should be <br />addressed in 2019. Your ideas will be compiled and may be included in the 2019 Legislative Action Plan. Please keep in <br />mind that NMMA generally seeks priorities that impact the North Metro region or multiple member cities and have <br />membership consensus. <br />Please provide your comments no later than Tuesday, October 16 to ensure early consideration during the action plan <br />development process. <br />Providing answers to the following questions will be helpful to NN%4A lobbyist Troy Olsen as he compiles ideas for <br />presentation to the NNIMA Operating Committee and Board of Directors. Please submit ideas and/or direct any questions <br />to Troy (h•oyo@ewald.com). <br />1. Please describe the legislative change, priority or idea you wish to share. <br />a. Rule making process used by Watershed Districts <br />2. Briefly describe the problem or issue your change or idea addresses. <br />a. Watersheds have statutory authority to promulgate rules that can have significant fiscal impacts on <br />development, including city infrastructure projects. The process lacks the same checks and balances that <br />is found in state rulemaking where focus groups are created, rules are published, there is a comment <br />period along with a Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR). Upon publication of intent to <br />adopt, if 25 or more people object in writing it goes to an Administrative Law Judge. <br />b. Watersheds have none of the latter and the Board members are appointed versus being elected, together it <br />results in Cities having unfunded mandates imposed upon on them with little recourse. <br />3. What do you identify as benefits of your change or idea? <br />a. Rule making has to be more transparent and involved cities, developers and other impacted. <br />b. There should be an appeals process as part of the adoption. <br />c. Possibly look at the make-up of the board selection process <br />4. List (if any) concerns or potential negatives you recognize with your change or idea. <br />a. None <br />