Laserfiche WebLink
j) <br />Encourage ideas consistent with the <br />long-term goal of allowing urban <br />development only in urban areas. <br />Density incentives such as sprawl - <br />reduction aid programs are more <br />straightforward methods of rewarding <br />and encouraging compact urban <br />development than using local <br />government aid (LGA) for another <br />new purpose; and <br />k) Establish stricter criteria on the <br />amount cities can pay to townships as <br />part of an orderly annexation <br />agreement so that payments to <br />townships are limited to <br />reimbursement for lost property tax <br />base for no more than a fixed number <br />of years, documented stranded <br />assessments, and other items for <br />which there is a clear nexus. <br />LE-2. Wildlife Management Areas <br />Issue: The Department of Natural Resources <br />has been pressing for legislative <br />requirements creating development <br />restrictions on property adjacent to land <br />purchased by the state for hunting and other <br />conservation purposes. This issue has been <br />increasingly controversial as urban growth <br />extends into areas previously considered <br />rural and residential property owners are <br />finding themselves adjacent to public <br />hunting land. With large amounts of new <br />revenue going into state land purchase for <br />game and fish habitat and public access <br />purposes because of the passage of the <br />constitutional amendment, these problems <br />could occur even more frequently. <br />The solution being proposed will put local <br />governments in the position of enforcing <br />state land use restrictions and would require <br />extensive changes to local plans, controls <br />and ordinances. It would also create large <br />numbers of nonconformities on properties <br />within city limits and would make state <br />wildlife management areas far less desirable <br />due to impacts on future city development. <br />In rural areas, where this is less of a <br />concern, counties and townships have the <br />authority to object to the state purchasing <br />land for the outdoor recreation system for <br />these very reasons. Cities do not have that <br />statutory right. Due to recent statutory <br />changes (Minn. Stat. § 97A.137, subd. 4) <br />removing city authority to adopt ordinances <br />related to firearm discharge, hunting and <br />trapping activity in wildlife management <br />areas within their borders, these purchases <br />should not occur without city consent and <br />input. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities opposes the state imposing <br />retroactive development restrictions <br />around existing wildlife management <br />areas. <br />When purchasing state wildlife <br />management areas and other <br />conservation and outdoor recreation <br />system land, the state should either <br />purchase sufficient land to provide an <br />internal buffer from surrounding <br />development or purchase development <br />rights to land adjacent to the property if <br />such a buffer is deemed essential to <br />preserving the intended uses for the <br />property. This should be required for new <br />land purchases and done where feasible <br />for existing wildlife management areas. <br />Furthermore, Minn. Stat. § 84.944 and § <br />97A.145 should be amended to include <br />cities in the local government notification <br />and approval process the state must <br />follow before purchasing public land. <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 46 <br />