Laserfiche WebLink
Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2018 <br />Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Weidt made motion, Petryk seconded, to approve Rachel Juba to be promoted to fill the vacant <br />Community Development Director position. <br /> <br />All Ayes. Motion carried. <br /> <br />Update on the White Bear Lake Lawsuit <br /> <br />City Administrator Bryan Bear talked about the status of the District Court case involving the <br />White Bear Lake water level. Within the last two weeks, the DNR officially appealed the action <br />of the court. The DNR will now ask for a stay in the enforcement of the court proceedings. Bear <br />informed Council the City is still waiting for the hearings to be scheduled on the City’s appeal of <br />the four conditions the DNR placed on the City appropriations permits as a result of the judge’s <br />order. In the meantime, the permit conditions do not need to be complied with until the appeals <br />have been exhausted. Bear provided an update on the recently passed legislation that will cause a <br />delay in the enforcement by the DNR of any court order provisions, which has now become law <br />effective June 1st. Bear referred back to the DNR’s appeal of the district court case stating there <br />was a window of time for the City to provide input into the proceedings as an amicus party. <br /> <br />City Attorney Dave Snyder questioned whether the City wished to ask for limited participation by <br />petitioning for amicus status (friend of the court). If amicus status is granted, the City could file a <br />brief offering its particular views and arguments to support the notion that the court ruling was in <br />error. The arguments would focus on Hugo’s efforts in water conservations, how enforcement of <br />the order is counter-productive, emphasize the state statutory priority of managing water use for <br />drinking over recreational use, and rebuff claims that cities have not been mindful of water use. <br />Snyder anticipated other cities would be filing for amicus status, which is indicative of the <br />widespread impact of the ruling. <br /> <br />Haas felt it was in the best interest of the City to have its arguments and opinions before the <br />appeals court. <br /> <br />Miron agreed with Haas to let it be known what the impact this ruling has on cities and to further <br />help the court understand the fundamental flaw in shifting priorities without vetting or debating <br />the decision. Miron stated the court needed to know of the willingness of cities to continue their <br />conservation efforts and to understand the ruling may not lead to the results they were looking for. <br /> <br />Petryk agreed and stated Hugo has been a leader in water reuse and conservation and has already <br />met some of these goals, but Hugo is pushing for scientific answers. She talked about aquifer <br />recharge, which may be a bigger problem that has not been discussed. She was in favor of filing <br />for an amicus brief because all the information needed to be out there. <br /> <br />Miron referenced the Star Tribune article Bryan Bear was quoted in about how it was not a simple <br />irrigation issue but an economic development issue, and this was an important thing to point out. <br /> <br />Weidt talked about how the City has stayed out of the lawsuit and has worked to limit the amount <br />of ground water used by using stormwater to irrigate, encouraging low water use in the homes by <br />providing rebates, and educating the public on water conservation behavior. It was time for the <br />City to tell its side of the story, and this was an opportunity.