Agenda - Council - 01/14/2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

requirements, and creating a more uniform set of policies and controls. It would consolidate the official controls with regard to protection of groundwater, and its beneficial use." 4. Statements of Concurrence. Statements of concurrence from the City of Coon Rapids and the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization were submitted with the Petition, as required by Minn. Stat. § 103B.215, Subd. 2c . 5. Effect on Benefits and Damages. The Petition states there are no capital improvements or financial obligations for the Petitioned Area, as required by Minn. Stat. § 103B.225. 6. Notice of Filing. A Legal Notice of Filing of the proposed boundary change, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 103B.215, Subd. 3, was published in the Anoka County Union on August 23 and 30, 2013, in the Blaine Spring Lake Park Life on August 23 and 30, 2013, in the Coon Rapids Herald on August 23 and 30, 2013, and in the Fridley Sun Focus on August 29 and September 5, 2013. Further, a copy of the Notice of Filing was mailed to several addressees including the Anoka County Board of Commissioners, the Anoka County Auditor, the Anoka Conservation District, the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization, the District, several cities affected by the proposed boundary change, and the Department of Natural Resources. 7. Public Hearing. The Legal Notice of Filing was published pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 103B.215, Subd. 3, which requires within 20 days of the last date of publication of the Notice of Filing of the Petition that at least one request for hearing be received by the Board before a hearing will be held. No requests for hearing were received during the specified time period and no hearing was held. 8. Metro Region Committee Meeting. On October 1, 2013, the Board's Metro Region Committee and staff met to review and discuss the Petition. Board staff in attendance were Board Conservationist Mary Peterson and Barbara Hogan, Office Administrative Assistant. Board staff recommended approval of the boundary change per the Petition. Board staff noted there was no opposition to the proposed boundary change, the affected city and watershed management organizations concur in the Petition, approval of the boundary change would not affect the benefits or damages for any improvement previously constructed, and approval of the boundary change would be substantially consistent with the purposes and requirements of Minn. Stat. §§ 103B.205 to 103B.255. After discussion, the Committee found all the affected local units of government concur in the Petition, the proposed boundary change would be substantially consistent with the 2