Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 09 16 Draft Minutes 1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 09, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:06 p.m. Present were Mayor Hedberg, Councilors Keeney, McGuire, Morton and Thompson, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Schwarzhoff, Assistant City Manager Olson, Finance Director Uram, City Engineer / Inspections Director Poppler, Public Works / Natural Resources Director Gehler, Community / Economic Development Director Rogness, Police Chief Elliott, and Executive Assistant Schroeder. CONSIDER FEE TO TRUST REQUEST FOR ICO PROPERTIES Boyles: Explained that special meetings are commonly called to deal with a particular topic, when a deadline may be looming or when we have scheduling issues with councilmembers. Stated that both of the City Council meetings in March only have four councilmembers present and the Council has typically sought to have all members present if possible when major issues are scheduled to be addressed. Noted on February 12, the Council did indicate a special meeting could be called to discuss the fee to trust application. Stated that this meeting is about the fee to trust request for the Inyan Ceyaka Otonwe (ICO) properties for 218.65 acres of property including the Menden properties and the properties in the immediate area. Added that a notice from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) came on February 8th that stated an application had been submitted for the ICO property and indicated the City had 30 days to respond. Upon receipt of this notice, the City immediately requested a 30-day extension that was approved and the City now has until April 8th to respond. Explained that the City Council is aware of the issue, as the topic of fee to trust has been raised to one degree or another on November 23rd, December 14th, and February 22nd. During the course of his comments he distributed to Council members and made available to the public, among other things a copy of the agreement as proposed by the City and a copy as already approved by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) Business Council. Added there was a Fee to Trust Work Group made up of Councilor Keeney and Mayor Hedberg to address any issues that arise regarding these types of applications. Noted on February 22nd the Council discussed putting together an agreement which would address some of the remaining concerns the City has with respect to the application, including sewer/water improvements and the SMSC’s future acquisition of property in the annexation area. Stated the agreement was drafted and presented to the SMSC Business Council. Explained that the Business Council and Fee to Trust Work Group discussed possible changes to the agreement and the Business Council approved the current draft agreement. Stated the City did request an additional 30-day extension to discuss the agreement but the Business Council declined indicating there is still time left before the April 8th deadline to reach agreement. Explained that the City’s proposed land purchase restrictions on the SMSC are not restrictions put on any other persons. Stated that Business Council fully acknowledges that there are laws that are extended to Indian Tribes via our Federal Government which allow the placement of land into trust and the unique implications of such action. The Business Council is acting in accordance with those laws, as the SMSC purchases property and requests trust status for the property. Concluded that there are five actions the Council can take: (1) take no action (2) approve the agreement already approved by the Business Council (3) continue to discuss this matter within the April 8th timeframe (4) have staff prepare a letter to the BIA per Council direction (5) retain Perkins Coie to prepare the letter on our behalf. Hedberg: The mayor suggested that the fee to trust work group members comment first. Stated the Council can adopt the agreement set in front of us which was approved by the Business Council or adopt the agreement that was sent to the Business Council with the City’s additional changes. DRAFT 03 09 16 Special City Council Meeting Minutes 2 Keeney: Explained that the City is constrained by obligations to meet the Metropolitan Council’s requirements for long-range planning with the City’s comprehensive plan which took a year to develop. Stated the City had to predict where the boundaries would be and that does not mesh well with the fee to trust process the Federal Government has in place. Explained that he knows both sides have to work together but to make a decision for long-range plans spanning decades is hard to make in a couple months’ time. Noted some annexation area land is already within the City’s boundary which could be key to the City’s economic development. Expressed his concerns regarding paragraph three, where the City would trade off other long-range plans and commitments for this agreement. Hedberg: Advised that if the City decides to object it has the potential to set us back 20 years regarding the relationship with the SMSC. Explained that during a meeting with the Business Council they indicated they do not want to go down the path of a dispute. Stated both parties try to avoid duplication of infrastructure. Added that the joint water supply agreement with the SMSC saved the City two to three million dollars in capital costs and has been working effectively for both communities. Stated the SMSC is intending to expand their water treatment facility in the next couple of years and the City could potentially work through an extension agreement like our water agreement now to make it a joint treatment facility. Commented the City’s Capital Improvement Plan has a 15 million dollar water treatment facility listed which would be a duplication of infrastructure and major capital expense to the city if it were to be built. Stated the cooperative agreements with the SMSC are unique to our growing communities. Concluded that because of the timelines and the consequences of adopting another course, he is in favor of adopting the agreement already approved by the Business Council. Morton: Stated her thanks to the work group and the staff that worked with the Business Council to write up the agreement. Stated her thanks to the Business Council for the information they provided that indicates everything that the SMSC has done over the years to validate that the SMSC is a contributor to the community as a whole. Explained her objections are about the inventory of the land and she cannot support this. Stated the City has a right to object to more land going into trust and the City needs to look into the entire scope of the land, not just one instance. McGuire: Stated he has concerns about the agreement and he prefers the agreement presented before the last changes by the Business Council. Commented he is aware the Business Council will change down the road as will the City Council. Asked to know the Fee to Trust Work Group recommendation. Thompson: Questioned why the fee to trust is tied to the sewer and water connection. Suggested there has to be a way the pipes can go into the ground and not have them tied to an agreement. Hedberg: Responded that the SMSC made it clear that they are not developing property until it is in trust. Added that the core factor is that the SMSC has a long-standing policy not to develop land until it is in trust. Thompson: Asked if the agreement between the SMCS and Scott County to build this road is in place. Hedberg: Replied yes the agreement exists and it states if another body wants to install utilities, then that body would be able to using the right of way but would have to pay for certain associated costs. Added that the overall County agreement will not be fulfilled until the land is in trust. Thompson: Suggested the City lay our sewer and water pipes in duplication. Asked could the City assess them or do eminent domain? Keeney: Responded that there would not be a need to take any additional County right-of-way since it is available under the terms of the agreement. Stated the City probably could not assess SMSC if it is in trust and there is not enough time to get pipes laid before it goes into trust. Hedberg: Added to install the utilities after the road is in place would be expensive. Thompson: Asked if the City could respond to the BIA stating that we need to get this infrastructure installed. DRAFT 03 09 16 Special City Council Meeting Minutes 3 Boyles: Responded the Scott County and SMSC agreement addresses using the right-of-way to install the City’s utilities. Explained there were a couple of options identified by the staff previously to the city council which identified installing the utilities elsewhere but the costs to the City were much higher and there is no guarantee that the City would get approval to use the property needed for such purposes. Keeney: Stated if the City is serious about writing an effective objection letter, serious about preventing the land from going into trust, it would involve hiring experts which could be expensive as stated in the Perkins Coie Fee Proposal and the chances of success are not high. Added this route would generate problems with our relationship with the SMSC and it does not sound like a good direction to go. Noted he is not happy about the situation the City has been put into but the best way forward in this situation is to trust that the SMSC leadership will continue to work in good faith and be sensitive to the conflicts. Concluded that the three options are to do nothing, have staff draft an objection letter or adopt the agreement as approved by the Business Council. Morton: Stated she does not like the feeling of being held hostage and wants to have the right to hold an opinion. Agreed that hiring an outside attorney is too expensive. Explained that when she ran for office four years ago the fee to trust was something she had issues with and she is not backing down on that now. MOTION BY HEDBERG, SECOND BY MCGUIRE TO ADOPT THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BUSINESS COUNCIL MOTION BY KEENEY, SECOND BY HEDBERG TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT REMOVING “AS THE CITY AND COMMUNITY HAVE REACHED AGREEMENT ON ALL ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPLICATION” FROM SECTION 3 OF THE AGREEMENT VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The amendment motion carried. Keeney: Questioned if this agreement binds us for future fee to trust requests. Schwarzhoff: Responded that it does not. Hedberg: Added that the BIA normally considers only one application at a time. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The main motion carried. ADJOURNMENT With no further business brought before the Council, a motion was made by Morton and seconded Thompson by to adjourn. The motion carried and the meeting adjourned at 5:53 p.m. VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ DRAFT 03 09 16 Special City Council Meeting Minutes 4 Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The motion carried. ________________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager