2022.08.15 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

From:Bryan Bear To:Michele Lindau Subject:FW: Supreme Court - Civil/Other Case No. A20-1637: Opinion Date:Thursday, August 11, 2022 8:07:22 AM Attachments:Supreme Court Decision on Watershed Appointments 20July2022.pdf -----Original Message----- From: David Snyder [mailto:david@johnsonturner.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 10:45 AM To: Bryan Bear <BBear@ci.hugo.mn.us>; Rachel Juba <RJuba@ci.hugo.mn.us> Subject: FW: Supreme Court - Civil/Other Case No. A20-1637: Opinion Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Bryan: Here is the Supreme Court's order on the watershed district lawsuit. Hugo tendered a brief as Amicus. I should say that congratulations are in order because it appears to me that they have adopted your rationale quite directly in ruling on this case.....no small thing. In summary, recall that the Anoka County board rejected a list of nominees to the RCWD submitted by Circle Pines. It selected a member from Columbus-even though Columbus only submitted one candidate (Ms. Priener). The Supreme Court has held that "the statute requires counties to choose from city nominees unless those nominees cannot fairly represent the various hydrologic areas. (it also concluded) that the three-nominee requirement applies only to the aggregate list of all city nominees." (See P. 15). The case is being remanded to the district court to have it evaluate whether the Columbus nominee (Priener) can fairly represent the hydrologic area (not an uncontroversial inquiry, given the weighting of RCWD board members from that area). I suspect that neither the county nor Circle Pines are happy with the decision-the appointee might still be defensibly retained, but the overreaching claim of county board appointment rights when not EVERY city in the district submits three parties has been discarded. I will look forward to discussing this with you but it appears to me, as noted above, that Hugo's suggested interpretation and implementation is fully adopted by and enshrined in this order. It mirrors your observations about the practical impossibility of demanding complete uniformity in city submissions and in encouraging participation (see pages 17 and 18). Hugo made two points: 1.The "list" of nominees that the county board considers must contain three nominees otherwise the County board is free to select its own candidate. 2.It does not require a list of three nominees from EVERY city in the area to displace County appointment authority- it only requires that three names be put in front of the County board for municipal nomination to take precedent. These points are all adopted and assumed in this order. At this point in my analysis of it I have not considered its impact on your practice of submitted one individual for nomination to the county board......while naming them three times to satisfy the county's reliance on the now overturned Anoka County practice. But we will give that some thought. Thank you for your involvement here. David K. Snyder david@johnsonturner.com / Direct Dial: 651-403-8972 / F: 651-464-7348 / www.johnsonturner.com Mail to: 56 E. Broadway Ave. #206, Forest Lake, MN 55025 Forest Lake, MN / Lake Elmo, MN / Woodbury, MN / Blaine, MN Please consider the environment before printing this email -----Original Message----- From: pmacs.enotice@courts.state.mn.us <pmacs.enotice@courts.state.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 10:05 AM