2022.08.15 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Hugo City Council Meeting Minutes for August 15, 2022 Page 7 of 10 Update on Circle Pines vs Anoka County on Rice Creek Watershed District Lawsuit City Attorney Dave Snyder provided Council an update on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the lawsuit between Circle Pines and Anoka County regarding appointments to the Rice Creek Watershed District. City Attorney Dave Snyder referenced a memo to the Council from him and a copy of the ruling issued around July 20, 2022. In summary, it was about a lawsuit involving Anoka County concerning the Rice Creek Watershed District’s appointment of managers. He explained the RCWD is governed by a board of managers appointed by the counties, and they have independent taxing authority. A few years ago, a new manager needed to be appointed by Anoka County, and the City of Circle Pines submitted three names to the Anoka County Board. Another municipality submitted one name. The county board declined the submitted list of nominees and appointed someone who served before. The county’s rationale was that every city in the jurisdiction needed to provide a list of three names, otherwise all lists were disqualified. Circle Pines filed a lawsuit, and the Anoka County District Court’s ruling supported the Anoka County Board’s interpretation. The ruling was appealed by Circle Pines, and it went to the Minnesota Court of Appeals who upheld the trial court’s ruling. Circle Pines then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which granted review. The City of Hugo, along with other cities, offered to participate by submitting an amicus curiae brief (friend of the court) to offer its own views on the how the appointment process should go. The City did not take any position but wanted to make sure the statute was properly interpreted. Hugo’s interpretation was that if the County Board is presented with a list of three names, they are obliged to appoint from that list. On July 20, 2022, a ruling was issued the Supreme Court that agreed with the rationale the City offered. Snyder commended City Administrator Bryan Bear’s common-sense interpretation that was ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court. He stated this reaffirms the roles of local government involvement in nominating and appointing watershed district managers and advises county board’s they need to draw from the cities’ list. Snyder said the Washington County Board agreed, and communications between the City and County had been very positive. Miron thanked Snyder for the explanation. He said he appreciated this being brought to their attention and asked if this would become the precedence throughout the state. Snyder replied the statute is directed at metropolitan areas but was effective statewide. Weidt commented on the importance of who represents the City on the watershed district board. He said it was good to see the courts agreed, and it was important to the cities to have a voice on the board. He thanked Bryan for his common sense. THC/Edible Cannabis Regulation and Consideration of Moratorium to Permit Study of Retail Sale of THC Containing Edible Food Products City Attorney Dave Snyder explained the Minnesota Legislature had authorized the sale of certain edible and beverage products containing up to 3% THC. The legislation had created a situation where they could be bought and sold without any input from regulatory agencies. He said it appeared the legislation went through relatively unnoticed. Without statewide regulations, cities had been scrambling to evaluate it, an many had adopted a moratorium on the sale of these items to permit time for cities to study it. He explained a moratorium is a temporary ordinance a city can pass to stall an activity and allow time to study potential regulations and determine