HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 21, 1997 - Workshop
~/VS1en
I
PRIOR LAKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WORKSHOP
January 21, 1997: 4:00 p.m.
I. Call to Order
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Election of Officers
IV.Approvalof:Minutes
A. January 8, 1997
V. Consent Agenda
A. None
VI. Presentations
A.
VII.Public Hearings
A. None
VIII.Old Business
A. Review and Discuss Bylaws and Enabling Resolution-City
Attorney Suesan Lea Pace
B. Overview of Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance.
C. Designation of Regular Meeting Dates/Times
IX. New Business
A. Direction on Award Printing Proposal.
X. Other Business
XL Announcements or Correspondence.
XII.Adjournment, 7:00 p.m..
1:\EDA\1'::197.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PRIOR LAKE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MEETING MINUTES
DATE: January 8, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order: The meeting was convened by City Manager Boyles at 7:00 p.m.
Present were Commissioners Tom Kedrowski, Pete Schenck, Roseann
Campagnoli, Bob Barsness, Sally Schmidt, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney
Pace, Mayor Andren, Planning Director Rye, Planner Tovar, Planning
Coordinator Kansier, Advance Resources for Development Consultant Roger
Guenette, Lee Ann Schutz of the Prior Lake American, and Recording Secretary
Oden.
II. Pledge of Allegiance
II1.Approval of Minutes
A. None
IV. Consent Agenda
A. None
V. Presentations
A. History of Economic Development Authority and Rationale for
Reformatting Same, Mayor Andren
. Mayor Andren presented a historical overview of how the newly reformatted
EDA came to be. She thanked the members of the EDA for their involvement.
She said there was an Economic Development Committee, a charter
organization. In 1983 EDC existed as a recommending committee to the City
Council. She said at that time the perception was that Prior Lake was not
business-friendly. She said during the late 1980's one of the reasons for this was
that Prior Lake had to turn down businesses because there was no business
space, or zoning conducive to business.
. At that time, one of the things the EDC wanted was to focus on purchasing the
land for the Waterfront Business Park. The land was acquired, and
consequently businesses were able to relocate. The goal was one parcel per year,
and when it was put together, it was very successful. The City Council realized
that the public wanted services in the City and a diversified tax base. At that
time, 1800 residential lots were approved in Prior Lake. The EDC was
reformatted to become the Business Development Committee. Their main charge
C:\MSOFFICE\EDMN1897.DOC 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
was the business office park and encouraging arrival of new businesses not
residential. They did so well that there was no need for a committee, so they
disbanded. The City Council became the EDA but were not very active. A
couple of months ago, the City Council decided they did not want to be the EDA.
They wanted to have citizens with a lot of business experience to be on the EDA.
. Mayor Andren said the EDC and the BDC were recommending bodies. The City
Council wanted the EDA to be autonomous, and have the authority to act
without Council approval. This takes it out of the political arena, and allows
what is in the best interests of the community. She said at the end of 1995,
under the old Comprehensive plan, there was 90 acres zoned industrial, and now
there are 900 acres zoned for commercial/industrial under the new plan. She
said that the City Council has given the EDA all of the necessary powers for
autonomy.
. Roseann Campagnoli asked how the City's progress could be measured to date.
. The Mayor said the business office park is one major success. Another is local
residents establishing businesses in the City. She said the foundation has been
laid, and that was the progress. She stressed the importance of the autonomy of
the EDA.
. City Manager Boyles said that the Council was acting deliberately. First was
the business office park owned by the City to "jump start" business. Next was
the new Comprehensive plan with added business property inventory. Third,
the EDA has been reconstituted. Finally a new zoning ordinance and
subdivision code are being finalized to implement the comprehensive plan. He
said the EDA has substantial powers to make dramatic changes.
VI. Public Hearings
A. None
VILOld Business
A. Status Report on Development Issues, Roger Guenette.
. Roger Guenette presented this report. He went over some of the developments.
There are thirty acres of land in the vicinity of the Priordale Mall. He said the
old drive in theater site was purchased by Park Nicollet and Frauenshuh. They
were attempting to acquire the businesses surrounding that property, to
establish a comprehensive retail development. He said there had been ongoing
discussions with the owner of Priordale Mall and Reliance Real Estate. There
was not a consensus between financing and types of uses. Developers began
backing out. The Council said they were still interested. Park Nicollet said they
would build a clinic. Roger said it would be helpful if the EDA would look at this
issue in some detail, and what types of businesses should be promoted in the
area. He said it would be beneficial for the EDA to look at what sorts of issues
C:\MSOFFICE\EDMN 1897 .DOC
2
need to be addressed, and what properties front highway 13, like Velishek's,
Hollywood, the gas station. Those properties block the frontage of the land
behind them.
. Commissioner Schenck asked if all of the property-owners would have to
relocate.
. Roger Guenette said that mainly Velishek's would have to move.
. Another development involves Herb Wensmann's property at CSAH 42 and Pike
Lake Trail. It is a 40 acre tract zoned business park (commercial/industrial).
Mr. Wensmann purchased this and asked that it be rezoned. The City has
attempted to work with Mr. Wensmann on perhaps an office/warehouse project.
The office warehouse projects are very costly. That property has large holding
ponds and storm water retention. He said 25% was the net developable here .
He said they had lookad at reworking the infrastructure so that storm water
could be diverted north of 42. It could be more economically feasible. Mr.
Wensmann told Roger that he would like his own office to be built on that space.
If they could minimize costs by building only immediately needed utilities, the
viability of the project would be enhanced.
. Commissioner Barsness asked about having the drainage improved on the
property, and how that would affect the value.
. Roger said there weren't that many users that needed 40 acres.
. Roseann asked how the enhanced drainage affects the runoff.
. Planning Director Rye said that the runoff would not increase. The ponding
area is required to hold runoff. He said they enhance developable area. They
spoke with the County about a regional pond across the road.
. City Manager Boyles said that they could go over details like this m future
meetings.
. Roger said he did not know if the project could be viable where only 11 of forty
acres was developable.
. Commissioner Kedrowski said the area would be ok for residential use, but the
Council wanted commercial.
. Commissioner Barsness asked whether the zoning could be swapped.
. Roger said an option was diversion of holding pond areas. He said one problem
with this was traffic on CSAH 42.
. Commissioner Barsness asked what zonmg was m the best interest of the
comm unity?
C:\MSOFFICE\EDMN 1897 .DOC
3
. Planning Director Rye said the Council has been reluctant to reduce the
inventory of Commercial Land..
. Roger went over the Waterfront Passage Business Park. He said they had
worked with the BDC and it resulted in the Waterfront Passage. He said in the
Waterfront Passage, 33 acres were purchased of which 20 + acres were
developable because of wetland. He said the City incurred costs of 1.4 million for
infrastructure. Therefore, the City has tried to recover the $2.06 per square foot.
Roger explained Tax Increment Financing. He said that the City is able to use
the taxes generated by the difference in valuation between vacant and improved
property. The increment goes directly to the City, they get one hundred percent.
The development tax increment districts have eleven years duration maximum,
with nine years of increment. There are five types of tax increment financing
districts.
. The thirty acre site along the Priordale Mall, and property that crosses highway
13 is a redevelopment district. Because such sites include demolition and
relocation the duration is up to 25 years.
. Housing TIF districts provide low and moderate income levels. Maximum
duration of 25 years as well. There are none in Prior Lake.
. There is a soils correction district. There was one but, it was decertified.
. There is a hazardous substance subdistrict. There are none in Prior Lake.
. Suesan said in order to have the TIF tool, the district must first be established.
. Commissioner Schmidt asked what the County and School Districts felt about
this.
. Roger said the School District has been supportive of the City's TIF efforts to
develop long term business tax base. The County has a policy on TIF which the
City presently complies with.
. Roger said project areas could be created, within which there could be any type
of tax increment district
. Roger said that his understanding was TIF was through EDA but must be
approved by Council to be effective.
. Suesan said EDA can exercise many powers. The statutes govern its powers.
. Roger discussed a current Waterfront Passage issue. He said Stan Anderson who
just built the 33000 square foot building has indicated he has an interest in
doing several other projects. There was 1.6 acres, and a 5 acre site which he
c: \MSOFFICE\EDMNl 897. DOC
4
would develop if he got exclusive rights on parcel and at time period to initiate
development. He would commit to 50 thousand square feet. If this option is not
undertaken, the question is what is the likelihood of selling the property at or
above Mr. Anderson's proposal. In 1995 there were five parcels sold, in 1996
one, the reason projects did not occur were that most leads were inappropriate
uses, and smaller users did not meet the standards of development. Very few
people are going to buy 1.6 acres. The five acre parcel was close to being sold to
a lumber business. They wanted a warehouse that did not meet the standards of
Prior Lake.
. Suesan said the City Council has to approve TIF. She said EDA should
establish standards for TIF. There would be a problem for arbitrary action, so
minimum criteria should be established.
Roger said what they had done was look at the cash flow. The question should
be revisited of how TIF should be used in Waterfront Passage. Most projects are
owner occupied. This option will require that Anderson develop the property. He
said the information has been provided for discussion and at the next meeting
direction would be sought from the EDA.
. Commissioner Barsness said the City's square foot recovery costs were
established 5 years ago. The market should be rechecked.
. Roger Guenette said short of going and getting an appraisal, the $2.06 is what
they needed to meet city costs.
. Commissioner Schmidt asked why dollars received above the original goal is
rebated. She asked if there was value in rebating less.
. City Manager Boyles said another issue is annexation. The owners of a 270 acre
parcel adjacent to the office park wish to be annexed, receive sewer and water
and TIF..
. Commissioner Schmidt asked where the access was to the property.
. Commissioner Kedrowski said on CSAH 27 there was secondary access through
easement for industrial park entrance.
. Commissioner Barsness asked is there sewer and water, and if City zonIng
ordinances would apply.
. Commissioner Barsness suggested developing a strategic plan before
determining EDA objectives.
. Commissioner Campagnoli said they are not ready for someone to come before
them, they are not yet informed enough to act.
c: \MSOFFICE\EDMN 1897. DOC
5
. City Attorney Pace said for everyone who is new, it would make sense to outline
what authority and tools that they have before proceeding. She would give an
idea of statutes and processes.
. City Manager Boyles suggested that the attorney's presentation, election of
officers, and discussion of bylaws and enabling resolution could be deferred until
next time.
· The meeting t adjourned at 9: 15 p.m.
ltJ))~~
ExecuUc. r
~~
Secretary
C :\MSOFFICE\EDMN1897. DOC
6
~ I
LEGISLA lURE I
J "
ct;;~ Ch 4691/
Enabling Resolution \
Powers:
1. To acquire, transfer, lease or
improve real estate/easements
within its area of operation;
2. Eminent domain;
3. To enter into contracts;
4. To act as a limited partner;
5. To cooperate with & act as an
agent of the federal government;
6. To compile studies, analysis &
research;
7. To borrow money, issue bonds,
invest reserve funds & make
expenditures;
8. To undertake & carry out
improvement projects within its
area of operation;
9. To join official trade
associations and perform public
relations;
10. Any other powers granted by
its City Council.
City of Prior Lake
STRUCTURE AND AUTHORITY OF THE EDA
e City may, by ordinance, divide the economic development powers
& by resolution, may transfer the control, authority, and operation of
any project from the governmental agency that established the project
to the economic development authority. (MN Stat. Section 469.094,
Subd. 1-2)
Powers:
I~e and be sued;
b. To employ expers, officers &
!emp1oyees;
3. To undertake & carry out \
impro:ement projects within its area of
operatIOn;
4. To acquire, transfer, lease or improve
real estat!easements within its area of
operation;
5. To borrow money, issue bonds,
invest reserve funds & make
expenditures;
6. To compile studies, analysis &
research;
7. To cooperate with & act as an agent
of the federal government;
8. To make recommendations to the
City Council on enforcement or
initiationof municipal powers relating to
development of improvement projects;
9. To develop housing rehab.lassistance
grant programs.
City Development
Powers:
1. Adopt development programs aimed
at improving the facilities, quality of
life & quality of transportation.
2. To acquire land or easements
through negotiations or eminent
domain;
3. Adopt ordinances regulating traffic
controls as they relate to adequate
parking and pedestrian systems;
4. Install specia11ighting, landscaping
and snow removal systems;
5. Negotiate the sale or lease of
property for private development if
consistent with the development
program for the district.
("The City Council may restrict'
the powers of the EDA by
modification of the enabling
resolution.
i Limitations:
1. City Council must approve management! administrative structure;
2. All actions must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
3. Must follow City Council budget process;
4. City Council must approve the sale of bonds by a 2/3 majority;
5. City Council must approve any action involving a government agency;
6. City Council may require transfer of reserves.
1\funiciDaI Checks/Powers: City '\
Council must make a determination in
regard to a TIF Plan within 60 days:
1. Is the area a qualified District?
2. Is development likely to occur through a
private individual?
3. Does the Plan conform to the general
development plan for the municipality?
4. Does the Plan afford maximum
opportunity for development by private
enterprise?
5. Is the TIF computation accurate?
THE MECHANICS
PROJECT AREA (DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT)
AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF)
DISTRICTS
Financial
Differences
Geographical
Differences
Proiect Area:
Area in which TIF
funds can be spent.
TIF District:
Area from which
TIF funds are
generated.
A
~
EXAMPLES
Redevelopment Area In The City.
City Boundary
Redevelopment Area and
Tax Incremental District
Having Coterminous Boundaries
Redevelopment Area
~
City Boundary
City Boundary
.1
TIF Districts
Redevelopment Area And Scattered-Site District
ES
.ies
ver
>cy
In
pal
:'ley
bli-
.ing
,ble
ach
the
h~r
the
a\'."s
.'!~or
. :'~\'
,,;.J
4
4
q
~j~:,
C J:1S'
~ ex.
is ac:t
on:r.
.nsfer
11 th~
1101:'.
ishe.!
hhn
:p;\l1'
:ti,,'n-
tn'.!'
";lth.lO
utic',
tran.'
: ~".
ion. ,\
:l"S 01
!r~ In
mO\-aI
:~.
MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES
~ 471.705
C.J.S. Schools and School Districts 9 345.
In general 1
Notes of Decisions
That the provisions of Gen.St.1894, S9 3802,
3807, and 3809, prescribing to some extent the
manner in which the county auditor shall be
notified of the amount of a tax levy made by a
board of education, and the method of certifying
such amount, had not been strictly complied
with, was, because of the language found in
99 1586, 1588, no defense in proceedings to
enforce collection-'of tax. In re Taxes Delin-
quent of St. Louis County, 1899, 75 Minn. 456,
78 N.W. 115.
1. In general
Gen.St.1894,9 3802, providing that the clerk
of the board of education shall furnish to the
county auditor, on or before a certain day in
each year, an "attested" copy of his record,
stating the amount of money voted to be raised
by the district for school purposes at any annual
or special meeting, or by the board of edu-
cation, was not mandatory, so that, if the copy
of the resolution of the board sent to the auditor
was not attested, it did not invalidate the tax.
In re Taxes Delinquent of St. Louis County,
1899, 75 Minn. 456, 78 N.W. 115.
Where warrant issued by president of city
council in 1915 was not included in report of
village clerk or recorder of village as outstand-
ing warrant but warrant was not presented for
payment until 1947, the statute of limitations
would be a meritorious defense. Op.Atty.Gen.,
476-C-8, Dec. 3, 1947.
471.705. Meetings of governing bodies; open to public; exceptions
Subdivision 1. Requirement. Except as otherwise expressly provided by
. . statute, all meetings, including executive sessions, of any state agency, board,
commission or department when required or permitted by law to transact
public business in a meeting, and the governing body of any school district,r
however organized, unorganized ter:ritory, county, city, town, or other publie"
body, and of any committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission'
thereof, shall be open to the public, except meetings of the commissioner of
corrections. The votes of the members of such state agency, board, commis-
sion or department or of such governing body, committee, subcommittee,
board, department or commission on any action taken in a meeting herein
required to be open to the public shall be recorded in a journal kept for. that
purpose, which journal shall be open to the public during all normal business
hours where such records are kept. The vote of each member shall be
recorded on each appropriation of money, except for payments of judgments,
claims and amounts fixed by statute. This section shall not apply to any state
agency, board, or commission when exercising quasi-judiCial functions involv-
ing disciplinary proceedings.
Subd. 1 a. Labor negotiations; exception. Subdivision 1 does not apply to
a meeting held pursuant to the procedure in this subdivision. The governing
body of a public employer may by a majority vote in a public meeting decide to
hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including
negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor
negotiation proposals, conducted pursuant to sections 179A.Ol to 179A.25.
The time of commencement arid place of the closed meeting shall be announced
at the public meeting. A written roll of members and all other persons present
at the closed meeting shall be made available to the public after the closed
meeting. The proceedings of a closed meeting to discuss negotiation strategies
shall be tape recorded at the expense of the governing body and shall be
preserved by it for two years after the contract is signed and shall be made
563
I !
i i
; !
!
II I
:1
i! f
I'
I
i!
;1 i
;/ I
ij
~ ;
,
.
; t .;1
j r t;:
~ . :
q
Ltii
, '. ii' :~. '.1 -
! . ~ ,~
1"1
i, ;:j
ij ;;1
.} .;
~thn
H;d
<1' . i.
;. r ~ i
.: ~l ':"!!
~ 471.705
MUNICIPALITIES
available to the public. after all labor contracts are signed by the governing body
for the current budget period.
If an action is brought claiming that public business other than discussions of
labor negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor
negotiation proposals was transacted at a closed meeting held pursuant to this
subdivision during the time when the tape is not available to the public, the
court shall review the recording of the meeting in camera. If the court
determines that no violation of this section is found, the action shall be
dismissed and the recording shall be preserved in the records of the court until
otherwise made available to the public pursuant to this section. If the court
determines that a violation of this section is found, the recording may be
introduced at trial in its entirety subject to any protective orders as requested
by either party and deemed appropriate by the court.
The prevailing party in an action brought before or after the tape is made
available to the public which establishes that a violation of this section has
occurred shall recover costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by
the court.
Subd. 1 b. Agenda materials. In any meeting which under subdivision 1
must 'be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating
to the agenda items of the meeting which are prepared or distributed by or at
the direction of the governing body or its employees and which are:
(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;
(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or ,..-"'1'
(3) available in the meeting room to all members;
shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public, The
materials shall be available to the public while the governing body considers
their subject matter. This subdivision does not apply to materials classified by
law as other than public as defined in chapter 13, or to materials relating to the
agenda items of a closed meeting held in accordance with the procedures in
subdivision 1a or other law permitting the closing of meetings. If a member
intentionally violates the requirements of this subdivision, that member shall be
subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100. An action to
enforce this penalty may be brought by any person in any court of competent
jurisdiction where the administrative office of the member is located.
Subd. Ie. Notice of meetings. (a) RegUlar meetings. A schedule of the
regular meetings of a public body shall be kept on file at its primary offices. If
a' public body decides to hold a regular meeting at a time or place different
from the time or place stated in its schedule of regular meetings, it shall gi~e
the same notice of the meeting that is provided in this subdivision for a special
meeting.
(b) Special meetings. For a special meeting, except an emergency meeting or
a special meeting for which a notice reqUirement is otherwise expressl)'
established by statute, the public body shall post written notice of the ~~e~_
time, place, and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board of U~
public body, or if the public body has no principal bulletin board, on the door
564
}
,
t
J
I
f
.
.
. :,..'~ C. n,
",
~Es
'J~.
'Jf t
l1r i
;:!>
'c f
;1 f
.\:
rl 1
. t
l'
J
"
,
MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES
~ 471.705
of its usual meeting room. The notice shall also be mailed or otherwise
delivered to each person who has filed a written request for notice of special
meetings with the public body. This notice shall be posted and mailed or
delivered at least three days before the date of the meeting. As an alternative to
mailing or otherwise delivering notice to persons who have filed a written
request for notice of special meetings, the public body may publish the notice
once, at least three days before the meeting, in the official newspaper of the
public body or, if there is none, in a qualified newspaper of general circulation
within the area of the public body's authority. A person filing a request for
notice of special meetings may limit the request to notification of meetings
concerning particular subjects, in which case the public body is required to
send notice to that person only concerning special meetings involving those
subjects. A public body may establish an expiration date for requests for
notices of special meetings pursuant to this paragraph and require refiling of
the request once each year. Not more than 60 days before the expiration date
of a request for notice, the public body shall send notice of the refiling
requirement to each person who filed during the preceding year.
(c) Emergency meetings. For an emergency meeting, the public body shall
make good faith efforts to provide notice of the meeting to each news medium
that has filed a written request for notice if the request includes the news
me9ium's telephone number. Notice of the emergency meeting shall be given
by telephone or by any other method used to notify the members of the public
body. Notice shall be provided to each news medium which has filed a written-
request for notice as soon as reasonably practicable after notice has been given ~-
to the members. Notice shall include the subject of the meeting, Posted or
published notice of an emergency meeting shall not be required. An "emergen-
cy" meeting is a special meeting called because of circumstances that, in the
judgment of the public body, require immediate consideration by the public
body. If matters not directly related to the emergency are discussed or acted
upon at an emergency meeting, the minutes of the meeting shall include a
specific description of the matters.
(d) Recessed or continued meetings. If a meeting is a recessed or continued
session of a previous meeting, and the time and place of the meeting was
established during the previous meeting and recorded in the minutes of that
meeting, then no further published or mailed notice is necessary. For purposes
of this clause, the term "meeting" includes a public hearing conducted pursu-
ant to chapter 429 or any other law or charter provision requiring a public
hearing by a public body.
(e) Closed meetings. The notice requirements of this subdivision apply to
closed meetings.
(f) State agencies. For a meeting of an agency, board, COmmission, or
department of the state, (i) the notice requirements of this subdivision apply
only if a statute governing meetings of the agency, board, or Commission does
not contain specific reference to the method of pro\iding notice, and (ll) all
provisions of this subdivision relating to publication shall be satisfied by
publication in the State Register.
565
~yi'
~ .
~'I
, . j
:J'?1:~li
t\~' .~~.
.",~.:f
~"'1!~. ~.'.i f
'~'11
" ,/';:o.'U" {'~'.
-t~~~i.t
.,.."~ti.:..
".~~ '~:.!.' :~-.
'~~",::t!~1
7c_~\;. :.~~'~'ft
~.~,~\~~ lltlU i
'1.';;:.~.:.~;,.~:jttl" 'il
:'~',,"~k'fjil l
~~~4:00' :t;
l;.~;k!~.:~l; il.':
,','f'" I.
"":'..~.~_.i-j .:
. ".' ~ "r": ,~... .
'.,-k~,,""
.~,>."'_'~.io:
~ 471.705
MUNICIPALITJEs
(g) Actual notice. If a person receives actual notice of a meeting of b
body at least 24 hours before the meeting, all notice requirem~~nts a ~u d;c
subdivision are satisfied with respect to that person, regardless of th~ mct~IOJ 14
receipt of notice. (.~
(h) Liability. No fine or other penalty may be imposed on a mcmbe f
public body for a violation of this subdivision unless it is established th:1 o} ..
violation was willful and deliberate by the member. t I(
Subd. Id. Treatment of data classified as not public. (a) Except as prU\u.
ed in this section, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are 1:"1
public data. Data that are not public data may be discussed at a Olccllr'"
subject to this section without liability or penalty, if the disclosur~ rclate~ ttl~
_ a
matter within the scope of the public body's authority, is reasonably ncce!>~an'
to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body, and is willllJu'l
malice. During an open meeting, a public body shall make reasonabll' crf'nh
to protect from disclosure data that are not public data, including W"nt
practical acting by means of reference to a letter, number, or other dcsigll.ltllm
that does not reveal the identity of the data subject. Data discussed at ,Ill O~>{'l\
meeting retain the data's original classification; however, a record (If Ihr
meeting, regardless of form, shall be public.
(b) Any portion of a meeting must be closed if expressly required by lllhn
law or if the following types of data are discussed:
(1) data that would identify alleged victims or reporters of criminal~("11.:..1
conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerabl~~ "till:'; .
(2) active investigative data as defined in section 13.82, subdivisillll 5. or
internal affairs data relating to allegations of law enforcement pCI'~()llIlr:l
. misconduct collected or created by a state agency, statewide system. or plllili.,:~1
subdivision; or
(3) educational data, health data, medical data, welfare data. 01' IlIt" II l.;al
health data that are not public data under section 13.32, 13.38, 13.42. or I' .JtI.
subdivision 2 or 7.
(c) A public body shall close a meeting for preliminary consideration o(
allegations or charges against an individual subjectt~ its authority. II the'
members conclude that discipline of any nature may be warranted. further
meetings or hearings must be open. A meeting must also be op~n at Ih"
request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting.
(d) A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the perfo~ance. of 0\0
individual who is subject to its authority. The public body shall Idenllf) .th~
individual to be evaluated prior to closing a meeting. At its next open ~ecLlo~.
the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluaLlon. A
meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of th~
meeting.
(e) Meetings may be closed if the closure is expressly authorized by St3tul~ OC"
permitted by the attorney-client privilege.
566
MUNICI
Subd.
public b
meeting
Subd. :
subject t(
exceed $
brought
administ:
by the sa
forfeit at
capacity
such per~
in conne(
evidence
separate
declaring
go\'ernin~
the gover
Subd. ~
Meeting :
laws 19S~
1973.
1974; __,'
137,9 I;
1987. c. 3
1991, c. 3
The 1967
milling una
provision tt
should be ,
added a sen
member sh
tion of mo
ments, c1ai
laws 197
authorizatic
"villages" ,
ies" or the
cities" for'
laws 197
at authority
order to rec
of the Minr
laws 197
t.;) revision,
"Except
law, all me
of the gov,
howe\'er (
ES
~ ic
llS
of
a
Ie
J-
>t
~
,I
\'
...
I.'
j
t
l
1
j
MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES
~471.705
Subd. Ie. Reasons for closing a meeting. Before closing a meeting, a
public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the
meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed.
Subd. 2. Violation; penalty. Any person who violates subdivision 1 shall be
subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in an amount not to
exceed $100 for a single Occurrence. An action to enforce this penalty may be
brought by any person in any court of competent jurisdiction where the
administrative office of the governing body is located. Upon a third violation
by the same person connected with the same governing body, such person shall
forfeit any further right to serve on such governing body or in any other
capacity with such public body for a period of time equal to the term of office
such person was then serving. The court determining,the merits of any action
in connection with any alleged third violation shall receive competent, relevant
evidence in connection therewith and, upon finding as to the Occurrence of a
separate third violation, unrelated to the previous violations issue its order
declaring the position vacant and notify the appointing authority or clerk of the
governing body. As soon as practicable thereafter the appointing authOrity or
the governing body shall fill the position as in the case of any other vacancy.
Subd.3. Popular name. This section may be cited as the "Minnesota Open
Meeting Law".
Laws 1957, c. 773, S 1. Amended by Laws 1967, c. 462, S I, eff. May 17, 1967; Laws ~",
1973, c. 123, art. 5, S 7; Laws 1973, c. 654,.S IS; Laws 1973, c. 680, SS 1, 3, eff. May-I, _ '
1974; Laws 1975 c. 271, S 6; Laws 1981, c. 174, S I, eff. May 12, 1981; Laws 1983, c.
137, S 1; Laws 1983, c. 274, S 18, efE. June 7, 1983; Laws 1984, c. 462, S 27; Laws
1987, c. 313, S I; Laws 1990, c. 550, SS 2, 3; Laws 1991, c. 292, art. 8, S 12; Laws
1991, c. 319, S 22.
Historical and Statutory Notes
The 1967 amendment deleted provision per- county, city, village, town or borough and of
mitting unanimous votes to go unrecorded and any board, department or commission thereof,
provision to the effect that unrecorded votes shall be open to the public. The votes of the
should be deemed to be unanimous and also members of such governing body. board, de-
added a sentence providing that the vote of each partme~lt or co~missio~ on any action taken in
member shall be recorded on each appropria- a m~etmg herem require? to .be open to the
tion of money, except for payments of judg- public shall be ~eco.rded m a Journal kept for
ments, claims and amounts fixed by statute. that purpose, which Journal shall be open to th~ ,
public. The note of each member shall be re-
Laws 1973, c. 123, art. 5, 9 7, was a general corded on each appropriation of money, except
~u~horization for the consolidation of the terms for payments of judgments, claims and amounts
. V1,I,lages" and "boroughs" into the term "cit- fixed by statute."
I~S. or the substitution of the term "statutory Laws 197:; c 271 s:. 6 I'nstructed the revisor
Cities" ~ "'11 " .JJ "b h" J,. , ':$
or VI ages anU{or oroug s. of statutes to substitute, inter alia, "corrections
Laws 1973, c. 654, ~ IS, contained the gener- board" for "Minnesota corrections authority" in
al authority to make changes in terminology in the statutes.
~rder to ~ecord the funct~ons, power~ and duties The 1981 amendment added subd. 1 a, relat-
the Minnesota corrections authonty. . ing to labor negotiations.
Lav.:s 1973, c. 680, rewrote the section. Prior Laws 1983, c. 137, ~ 1, added subd. Ib, re-
to reVISion, this section read: quiring that printed materials relating to the
"Except as otherwise expressly provided by agenda !te:ns of ~ open meeting be available
law, all meetings, including executive sessions, for public inspectIOn.
hf the governing body of any school district Laws 1983, c. 274, ~ 18, directed the revisor
OWever organized, unorganized territory, of statutes to substitute references to the com-
567
I ,l'
'I
! -,Ii
'I . t,
ilt. 'l.'!,..
<f :1;
:ii. '.il;
Ii ';
~1\'tfJ~' q;
__,~}:~x:~ ;~;1!'~: ;
'~...'~-.~'" '~,'.'1,'. i,t.!.l.,.
k''?'"'' I,
,ot','Y .., 'I
~~~'~\;~ :i.1 > ,l:i,'
:,~;;,'-..rr. -, t,) : i") l
"". ,.,. ~. ',I
~"'i:5, ; i i ;ti
r~/~j. '. t! ~ ~:.'
,~.:t.f';1 : i:: .
;;if'k1 ','\
-~~, ;
. '.4 Ii
(~, III:
, I~
I~
~.,
I,
~,
, '~
fl
El
f'
.! I
d I
II'
II'
I :1
I.
!
.. j
iI : j
l :j
.;
. :1'
'll
'! l!
~ 1
ilj
"!"
J)
.~ .
~ 471.705
MUNICIPALIT1E.S
. The 1990 amendment added subd. hi n
mg to the treatment of data cl~'(1' Us.
bl' d bd 51 leu .11 boo
pu IC, an su . Ie, requiring a st t ..
th d f th'fi a emCn! lltl
e recor 0 e speCt IC grounds . '.
meeting to be closed. ~rmlll1!lf ·
Laws 1991, c, 292, art. 8 9 P nJ u
1991,c.319,9 22,insubd l'both~r' a _,J""
b d f d . emO\n,J tJ...
oar. 0 par ons from an exception to the .
meeting law. ~!!
~tUl"
S.:hools
WESTL'
CJ.S. C
f
f Sc:.: WE
{
t In genera'
l Attorney.(
t Capacity t
Chance Ot
t Construct
Disci p Ii na
i meeting
t Evidence
; Exception
, E.\c<:utIve
t
I In gel
DlsclI
Labot
Govemlnl
i In ge
Capa(
~ Scho<
~ InjunctiOl
I InspectlOl
Labor ne
Ings 1
MeetIn2s
J
i I..
~ Execl
t Priv<
Quor
f MltIgatin
Open to :
t In gE
PlaCE
Parties
Penalty
In gE
Mitll
~ Rem
f Place of
Practice
:1 Printed 1
Private (
t Purpose
Quorum
t Removal
School 1:
I Social g
Tape re<
'ValIdity
Validity
Vote rc<:
l. Vali
Minm
tutional
missioner of corrections for references to the
Minnesota corrections board throughout Minne-
sota Statutes 1984.
The 1984 amendment instructed die revisor of
statutes to substitute reference to 9 179A.0 1 for
reference to 9 179,61 and reference to
9 179A,25 for reference to 9 179.76 throughout
Minnesota Statutes.
The 1987 amendment added subd. lc, relat-
ing to notice of meetings.
. Cross References
Board of pardons, meetings, see 9 638.04.
Comprehensive health association, meetings, see 9 62E.l 0: .
Corporation for delivery of health care and related services, meetings, see 99 246A.Oo ~4M 17
Education district board, meetings, see 9 122.92. . ~
Environmental quality board, meetings, see ~ 116C.60,
Health technology advisory committee, closed hearings, see 9 62J,156.
Hennepin county board, medical center meetings, closed sessions, see 9 383B.217.
Hospital boards, closed meetings, see 9 144.581.
Inspection of records by public, see ~ 15.17.
Labor interpretive center, board meetings, see 9 138A.01.
Life and health guaranty association, board meetings, see 9 61B,22.
Newspapers, official and legal publication, see 9 331A.Ol et seq.
Public corporation for delivery of health care and related services, application of sectlnll. ~~
9 246A.06.
Public employees retirement association or pension plan, application of section. see !i 35M I).'
State high school league, meetings, see 9 128C.22.
State retirement system or pension plan, application of section, see 9 356A.08.
Teacher termination proceedings, arbitration hearing. see 99 125.12, 125.17.
Teachers retirement association or pension plan, application of section, see 9 356A.08.
Town board, on-site inspections, exemption from open meeting law, see 9 366.0 I,
Workers' compensation, advisory council, " meetings, see 9 175.007.
y
Law Review Commentaries
Clouds descend on the Minnesota sunshine Of open meetings, attorney-client pri\'llf~n
laws. Marshall H. Tanick, 58 Hennepin Law. and government lawyer. James S. HollII'" atW
(Mn.) 6 (July-Aug. 1989). Da\id C. Graven. 33 Bench and Bar I\u ~. r
Conflict between the Minnesota Data Process- 25 (Feb. 1977).
ing Act and the Minnesota open meeting law. Open Meeting Law and attorn.:y-c1icllt IlChl.
16 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 541 (1990). lege. 1978,4 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 250.
Data privacy: Everything you .wanted to Recent developments in Minnesota educllltiuft
know about the Minnesota Government Data law. Hon. Peter S. Popovich. Donald W. I\lln.
Practices Act-from "A" to "Z". Donald A. and Michael Thomas Miller, I3 Wm.Mitch#U
Gemberling and Gary A. Weissman. 1982, 8 (
Wm.Mitchell L.Rey. 573. L.Rev. 1 1987).'
Minnesota Open Meeting Law after twenty Statutory fee shifting: New opponuniti.". 141
h II enhance client results. Arlo H. Vande Vegte. IS
years. 1979, 5 Wm. Mitc e L.Rev. 375.
Minn.T.Law.3 (Fall 1990).
Minnesota's open meeting law: James M. lU1-
Samples. March-April 1977, 45 Hennepin Victims Reparations Act: A preliminal1' III
Lawyer 8. ysis. 1976,2 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. 187.
Newsgathering YS. privacy: Tension around What constitutes a "meeting" under W
the First Amendment. John p, Borger. 1978 Minnesota open meeting law? 1985. II
Hamline L.Rey. 1. Wm.Mitchell L.Rev. 251.
Counties e=>52.
Library References
Municipal Corporations (1::>92.
568
) ALITlES
d. 1 d, relat-
Wed as not
:atement on
)ermitting a
and laws
emoved the
to the open
i, 246A.n.
'ction, see
356A.08.
,rivileges
lmes and
No.8, p.
:nt privi.
J.
ducation
V. Niles.
~titchdl
::Iities 10
'gte. 15
ry allo1l.
i~r the
55. II
"-='-'
'.._~~,i:.'
".,:~~~~'.
";';:~~~f;;
~i~.
~kl:-'
MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES
Schools <i:=>5 7.
WESTLAW Topic Nos. 104,268,345.
C.J.S. Counties SS 79 to 82.
~ 471.705
Note 2
C.J.S. Municipal COrporations g' 400.
C.J.S. Schools and School Districts 9 123.
WESTLA W Electronic Research
See WESTLA W Electronic Research Guide following the Preface.
In general 2
Attorney-cUent privilege 26
Capacity to act, governing bodIes 17
Chance or social gathering, meetings 7
Construction and application 3
Disciplinary proceedings, exceptions to open
meetings 13
Evidence 2S
Exceptions to open meetings 12-14
Executive sessions, meetings 6
In general 12
Disciplinary proceedings 13
Labor negotiations 14
Governing bodies 16-18
In general 16
Capacity to act 17
School boards 18
Injunction 22
Inspection of printed materials 19
labor negotiations, exceptions to open meet.
ings 14
Meetings 5-9
In general 5
i Chance or social gathering 7
IJ Executive sessions 6
Private discussions 8
Quorum 9
Mitigating factors,. penalty 29
Open to public 10, 11
In general 10
Place of meeting 11
Parties 24
Penalty 27-29
. In general 27
Mitigating factors 29
Removal 28
Place of meeting, open to public 11
Practice and procedure, generally 23
Printed materials 19
Private diSCUSSions, meetings 8
Purpose 4 -
Quorum, meetings 9
Removal, penalty 28
School boards, governing bodies 18
Social gathering, meetings 7
Tape recording 20
Validity 1
ValIdity of actions 21
Vote recording 15 ,
.
i
I
t
1
l
f
I
1
f
Notes of Decisions
tain terms may give rise to dispute over their
meaning, in that language of statute gives fair
warning that even mere deliberations of govern-
ing bodies, without decision or final action, are
included within statute's proscription, and in
light of past judicial and administrative deci-
sions and rulings, which place very narrow re-
straints on exceptions to statute. St. Cloud
Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community
Schools, 1983,332 N.W.2d 1.
Constitutional rights of free speech and free
assembly protect expression of ideas, not con-
duct of public business in closed meetings, and
although there may be an effect on free expres-
sion of ideas caused by requirement that public
meetings be open to public, legislature is justi-
fied in prescribing such openness in order to
protect compelling state interest of prohibiting
taking of actions at secret meetings where pub-
lic cannot be fully informed about dec~1;l or
cannot detect improper influences. . St. Cloud
Newspapers, Inc, v. District 742 Community
Schools, 1983,332 N.W.2d 1.
2. In general
Adopting procedures which foreclose public
discussion altogether, which effectively permit
final decision to be made in private, or which
conceal improper influences such as personal or
pecuniary interest of a public official, cannot be
tolerated in furtherance of an efficient adminis-
tration. The Minnesota Daily v, University of
Minnesota, App.1988, 432 N.W.2d 189, review
denied.
Intra-agency persuasion and discussion be-
come improper under open meeting law when
designed to avoid public discussions altogether,
to forge a majority in advance of public hear-
ings on an issue, or to hide improper influences
such as personal or pecuniary interest of a
public official. Moberg v. Independent School
Dist. No. 281, 1983,336 N.W.2d 510.
Provisions of section 466.07 relating to the
indemnification and defense of municipal offi-
cers and employees in connection with tort
claims does not require the municipality to re-
imburse the council member for legal expense
in connection with defense of an action seeking
1. Validity civil penalty for alleged violation of the Open
~linnesota Open Meeting law is not unconsti. Meeting Law. Op.Atty.Gen., 471-a, April 29,
IUtlonaIly vague or overbroad, even though cer. 1983.
569
"~I 'i'
I.
Ii
"
II
!:
~471.705
Note 3
3. Construction and application
The State Open Meeting Law is to be broadly
construed in favor of the public, and conducting
meeting where time and place of meeting have
not been given prior thereto or conducting
meeting prior to time when public was lead to
believe meeting was to commence is violation,
Men: v. Leitch, 1984, 342 N.W.2d 141.
Open meeting statutes are enacted for public
benefit and are to be construed most favorably
to public. St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v, Dis-
trict 742 Community Schools, 1983, 332
N.W.2d 1.
Minnesota Open Meeting Law will be liberally
construed in order to protect public's right to
full access to decision-making process of public
bodies governed by statute. St. Cloud Newspa-
pers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools,
1983,332 N.W.2d 1.
This section applies equally to all governing
bodies described therein and the statute should
not be less strictly construed for meetings of
townships than for those of any other govern-
mental unit. Sullivan v. Credit River Tp., 1974,
299 Minn. 170, 217 N.W.2d 502.
,
Oij
i!
I
:1
;j :.1'
i'
I
I
q
.,
~ ;
4. Purpose
Purpose of this section requiring meetings of
governing body of school district to be open to
public is to prohibit the taking of action at
secret meeting where it is impossible for inter-
ested public to become fully informed concern-
ing decisions or to detect improper influences.
Lindahl v. Independent School Dist. No. 306 of
Hubbard County, 1965, 270 Minn. 164, 133
N.W.2d 23.
.I:
"
5. Meetings-In general
Mediation sessions to discuss possible resolu-
tion of municipal border dispute in which city
was represented by less than quorum of city
council members Were not "meetings" as con-
templated by open meeting law; any proposed
agreement deriving from session could not be
acted upon without full deliberation by full city
council at open public meeting, city representa-
tives at sessions lacked power to transact public
business, and there was no evidence of any
improper PllIpose for sessions. Sovereign v.
Dunn, App.1993, 498 N.W.2d 62, review denied.
City council could not close meeting regard-
ing proposed changes to nude-dancing ordi-
nance, absent demonstration that need for con-
fidentiality outweighed public's right of access
to public affairs, despite risk of future litigation.
Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of St. Paul,
App.1989, 435 N.W.2d 64, review denied.
"Meetings" subject to requirements of open
meeting law are those gatherings of at least a
quorum or more members of governing body,
570
Ii
"
;1
I:'
,I.
,; I
I
;1
'/;L
J ;
I
1
"
.~
.
.f
.
.)
MUNIC~PALInES
or quorum of committee, subcommittee, board
department. or commission thereof, at which
members d..!scuss, decide, or receive information
as a rou on ISsues relating to OUlclal ~
o t at governing ady. Moberg v. Independent
School Dist. No. 281, 1983, 336 N.W.2d 510.
School board did not violate open meeting
law with respect to its decision to close a
school, although one private meeting involved a
quorum or more of school board in SUperinten_
dent's office shortly before regular board meet-
ing, superintendent distributed, but did not dis-
cuss, written copies of questions and anSwers
and invited board members to give him their
reactions individually after they had had an
opportunity to read material since such distri_
bution was functionally equivalent to recehing
information through the mail, which is permis_
sible, and there was no danger of forminlZ a
group consensus because no information ~'as
actually received until material was read and no
discussion Occurred. Moberg v. Independ~nt
School Dist. No. 281, 1983, 336 N.W.2d 510.
Gatherings of all members of school board
and district administrators for purpose of pro-
viding board members with background infor-
mation concerning issues currently facing edu-
cational system in general and school district in
particular, were "meetings," for purposes of
Minnesota Open Meeting Law, requiring that
such meetings be open to the public, Il'Ot\\ith-
standing that school board members tob ~ no
official action to resolve specific problems of
school district and no decisions or predecision.~
were made on any issue, in light of fact that
information received at such meetings could
foreseeably influence later decisions of school
board. St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. Y. District
742 Community Schools, 1983, 332 KW.2d I.
Gathering of municipal council where consul.
tants present reports and opinions on mall~n
within council's official duties or powers, or
where council members study and discuss such
matters, constitutes a meeting which must ~
open under this section. Op.Atty.Gen.. 471~.
Oct. 28, 1974.
Where all council members are of the same
political party, a "political caucus" gathering 01
council members to discuss municipal mallen
is a meeting which must be open. Op.Atty
Gen., 471-e, Oct. 28, 1974.
This section covers a council session ~h.ere
there is deliberation or action on a matter ~,th-
in the council's official duties or p~wers; ~
liberation" includes discussion and mcludes cl
collective acquisition of reports or state~tJ,1.
fact or opinion. Op.Atty.Gen., 63-a-5. :t...
1974,
A council session where there is d~l.i~
or action on matter within the counCIl s
,
~
I
'.
"fJ
":".".'"," "'.'
'.'-~-:;':::-'~-~
1.
Sl
d
d;
ce
of
tr,
pu
7.
j
em
que
infe
unci
Mot
198.
M
to c/
publi
742 ,
Co;
bel's,
cial-u
tion c
tion.
ACton,
8. _
This
cussior
and r,
471-e,
9. _
Meeti
bOdy 01
held to
forge m
to hide
Dunn,A
Gathe;
member
member~
city posi
backgrou
and meO'
when me
Or home
malt
flES
'oard,
vhich
lation
;1i'iess
,dent
510.
eting
.se a
,ed a
nten.
neet.
: dis-
wers
their
i an
istri-
iving
-mis-
19 a
was
d no
.. den:
510.
lard
p,'o-
If.Jr..
:..:u-
:t in
. or
:1::1l
i:h.
fill
llf
l'!lS
t::1t
'li!J
,,,01
n.:1
! I.
.111.
l."r~
"r
;. h f
b<"
-c, I
,
':1<" f
.If
.-l"'\
:\
MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES
duties or powers is covered by law even if it is
not intended as an official meeting and even if
the subject discussed does not appear, at the
time, to call for formal council action. Op.Atty.
Gen., 63-a-5, Oct. 28, 1974.
6. - Executlve sessions, meetlngs
Practice of the Austin city council whereby
the council declared itself to be in executive
session, required spectators to leave the room,
discussed matter informally, and then, when
discussion was finished, invited the public to
come back into the room, constituted a violation
of this section, though no actual business was
transacted at session which was closed to the
public. Op.Atty.Gen., 63-A-5, June 13, 1957.
7. - Chance or social gathering, meetlngs
Although "chance social gatherings" are ex-
empt from requirements of open meeting law, a
quorum may not, as a group, discuss or receive
information on official business in any setting
under the guise of a private social gathering.
Moberg v. Independent School Dist. No. 281,
1983, 336 N.W.2d 510.
Minnesota Open Meeting Law does not apply
to chance or social gatherings, nor does it pro-
hibit meetings 'of affected public bodies; it
merely requires that such meetings be open to
public. St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District
742 Community Schools, 1983,332 N.W.2d 1.
Conversation between two city council mem-
bers over lunch regarding application for spe-
cial-use permit for construction of satellite sta.
tion did not constitute open meeting law viola-
tion. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of
Afton, 1982, 323 N.W.2d 757.
8. - Private discussions, meetlngs
This section would not prohibit private dis-
cussions between council members of a housing
and redevelopment authority. Op.Atty.Gen.,
471-e, May 23, 1978.
~ 471.705
Note 12
place more emphasis on the development of
parks and recreational facilities, and when
members discuss whether certain items should
be placed on the agenda of future council meet-
ings. Op.Atty.Gen., 63-a-5, Oct. 28, 1974.
A gathering of less than a quorum is often
considered the same as a gathering of a quorum
or more for purposes of this section. Op.Atty.
Gen., 63-a-5, Oct. 28, 1974.
10. Open to public-In general
Town board meeting of which the public is
unaware is not a meeting which is "open to the
public" for purposes of this section. Sullivan v,
Credit River Tp., 1974, 299 Minn. 170, 217
N.W.2d 502.
Public meeting which had been adjourned by
school board and moved to board's usual meet-
ing room without inviting public of,tcdling pub-
lic to stay out was "open to public" within this
section requiring all meetings of governing body
of school district to be open to public, since
electors had already had ample opportunity to
express their views. Lindahl v. Independent
School O1st. No. 306 of Hubbard County. 1965,
270 Minn. 164, 133 N.W.2d 23.
11. - Place of meeting, open to publJc ';.~:.
While a village council cannot hold regular
meetings in a place outside the village limits, it
could on a temporary basis use a convenient
site located outside the village limits, providing
that there were no convenient and adequate
facilities inside the boundaries. Op.Tp., 1974,
299 Minn. 170,217 N.W.2d 502.
Meeting of members of school board of com-
mon school district held in private office 20
miles distant from district's territorial bound-
aries was not "open to the public" within stat-
ute requiring that all meetings of governing
body of any school district shall be open to the
public. Quast v. Knutson, 1967,276 Minn. 340,
150 N.W.2d 199. . ,
This section requiring meetings of governing
body of school district to be open to public does
not compel school board to conduct business at
place most advantageously suited for public
viewing. Lindahl v. Independent School Dist.
No. 306 of Hubbard County, 1965, 270 Minn.
164, 133 N.W.2d 23.
9. - Quorum, meetlngs
Meetings of less than quorum of governing
body of city may violate open meeting law if
held to avoid public discussion altogether, to
forge majority in advance of public hearings, or
to hide improper influences. Sovereign v,
Dunn, App.1993, 498 N.W,2d 62, review denied.
12. Exceptlons to open meetings-In general \
Gatherings of two or more members of a five ~
member council constitute a meeting when Open meeting law does not apply to letters, or
~embers review and discuss applications for to telephone conversations between fewer than
ty a quorum. Moberg v. Independent School Dist.
cbl Positions, when the city manager presents N 281 1983 336 N W 2d 510
ackground information on municipal matters o. , . " .
a~hd members exchange views on such matters, Where trial court enjoined school board from
.... en members gather socially at a restaurant violating Open Meeting Law and listed eight
Or home and at some point discuss municipal separate exceptions to the injunction, but the
matters such as whether the council should exceptions were not appropriate, supreme court
571
l~1::': '
m'~'" !I
-
m~,"
~~~!
'~~i;: :j
I(',.~"",,, 'ii'
~~I~-..tll ;;
',~:;f: ;j
','l71'~!j:i :1
~t..i",.,~"" . i ,,'
'1;~~~" . "
~t~iL, )!
$11', ::
~it~{'l~
~Wl'r9i ;!
:.~,;.i
.~f~~',
'. ....-..
:ii~' ,
J
..' '/.
'r:: ': \
H-l
.{'i'- ..I
, .
,~: )
Jl:}
l1tit
" j
:- r'
" .!
t.' tf
:1 a
'l lJ
I. ft Ij
i'H ~\-
~,~ H
;JiJ j
}I ,"Po ;'t
j ~.,
, ,; ~
~ 471.705
Note 12
would not affirm the remaining parts of the
injunction because of resultant lack of specifici-
ty as to acts which were prohibited. Channel
10, Inc. v, Independent School Dist. No. 709,
St. Louis County, 1974, 298 Minn. 306, 215
N.W.2d 814.
In action brought to force school board to
comply with Open Meeting Law, which resulted
in issuance of injunction prohibiting board from
violation of the law, exception for meetings in-
volving personal evaluation of individual em-
ployees was overbroad and inappropriate.
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School Dist.
No. 709, St. Louis County, 1974,298 Minn. 306,
215 N.W.2d 814.
In granting injunction prohibiting school
board from violating Open Meeting Law, excep-
tion for meetings for the purpose of inteIView-
ing prospective employees for administrative or
other sensitive positions was not appropriate,
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School Dist.
No. 709, St. Louis County, 1974,298 Minn. 306,
215 N.W.2d 814.
A municipal council's participation in a non-
public training program is not inconsistent with
this section where the program is devoted to
developing skills in communication, planning,
delegation of responsibilities, and decision-mak-
ing, and to gaining better understanding of
council members' responsibilities. but discus-
sion of matters within the council's official
duties or powers is. however. prohibited by this
section. Op.Atty,Gen.. 63a-5. Feb. 5. 1975..
A county welfare board may exclude the pub-
lic from portion of a meeting pertaining to
grants and seIVices to individuals in need. Op.
Atty. Gen.. 125-a-64. Dec. 4. 1972.
MUNICIPAunEs
to a leave of absence for purposes oth
h f '" . er l~
t ose 0 participating In a strike wer' t
priv~te i~ teachers so elected and board~s d~llt
eratlons In respect thereto were to remain . nI
dential. Head v. Special School Dist ~o ,.
1973.296 Minn. 267. 208 N.W.2d 294.' I o. I.
14. - Labor negotiations, exceptions 10
open meetings
. Closed meeting o~ s.chool board membcn to
diSCUSS labor negotiatIOn strategies held at .
quest of state mediator did not violate 0;
meeti?g law wh.ere law .au.thorizes mediator t:
p.enmt nqnpu~hc negotiations, medialion ~n-
slons and heanng between the parties, in Ih;1l II
was reasonable for board to conclude that meul.
ator had impliedly authorized them 10 meet
privately. Minnesota Educ. Ass'n v. Bc:nnclt
1982. 321 N.W.2d 395. .
15. Vote recording
The vote recording provisions of this secli.-,"
require that the individual votes of publk ofr..
cials on any action be recorded in a journal
except for votes on payments of judgmelll..
claims and amounts fixed by statute. Op.Alt\,
Gen., 125a-14, Feb. 28, 1975. '
While the charter provisions of a city aUlh.,..
rized a vote by ballot, the provisions of lhi.
section would require that the vote by ballot 1><:
such as to indicate the vote of each memhl'l' "Il
any appointment made. unless the vote~e 1I11~
imous. Op.Atty.Gen., 471e. Sept. 18,":02.
The provisi'ons of this section relating to Ih"
manner of casting of ballots by memhcrs or
governing bodies. boards. departments or \.'11I0'
missions is mandatory, and unless a secrel h,,/.
lot could be taken in such a manner as to cl\;,hlc-
the council to comply with and to sel'o'C lit"
purposes of this provision, the council cOllld 1I1l1
vote by secret ballot. Op.Atty.Gen., 471 e, AUI!
20. 1962.
The reasons why a particular membc:r of .a
school board may be for or against a SUblllill..J
motion need not be recorded in the minute,
Op.Atty.Gen., 161a":'20, Nov. 6. 1961.
13. - Disciplinary proceedings, exceptions
to open meetings
Racing Commission did not violate open
meeting requirement by excluding horse trainer
and her attorney from disciplinary proceedings
involving status of her license; legislature did
not intend to distinguish between disciplinary
proceedings involving employees and those in-
volving licensees or between people who are
subject to discipline and other members of the
public in excepting disciplinary proceedings 16. Governing ~odies-In general
from open meeting law requirements. Matter Purpose of amendment which broughl ~om.
of Hutchinson, App.1989, 440 N.W.2d 171, re- mittee meetings within open meeting la\~' '~ to
view denied. prevent public body from avoiding rest."':lIon~
City council's meeting for discussing disci- of law by resolving itself into commlll"'~ 01
plinary action against police chief was to be whole. Sovereign v. Dunn, App.1993, 49~
public pursuant to open meeting law. Annan- N.W.2d 62. review denied.
dale Advocate v. City of Annandale. 1989, 435 Gathering of public officials is not "commi~:
N.W.2d 24. rehearing denied. tee:' "subcommittee:' "board:' "depart,?~nl.
Hearings before school board for purpose of or "commission" of governing body subJ~1 ~
determining whether teachers were to be exon- open meeting law unless group is cap3b~,
erated by reason of having exercised their right exercising decision making powers of go\'~mm,
572
i MUNI,
I
body. Sc
NW.2d 62
Delegati,
ticipated iJ
nicipal bo
"subcomm
"commissi
meeting 1<
council, W
resolution
delegation
mal actioI'.
gation wa
meeting \\
volvement,
NW.2d 62
Open m,
not apply
and consu
on selecti,
screening
short list (
power to
committee
by regent;
able to tr2
v. Univer
N.W.2d Ii
Both co
to pro'
~ 471.
duct their
to public I
within ex<
Com'rs v
Nonpro
I mental he
Open Met
Gen., 92a
I Advisor
stitute "c,
board ant
I to this 5
1975.
City pI
I within tt
obligated
including
63a-S. D
17. -
Capaci
which re
daIs sub
where n
So\"ereig
review d
Capac:
which re
daIs suI
CIP ALITlES
oses other than
ike were to be
d board's delib-
to remain confi-
,01 Dist. No. I.
2d 294.
exceptions to
rd members to
~ies held at reo
,t violate open
~es mediator to
:nediation ses-
~rties. in that it
lude that medi.
them to meet
in v. Bennett.
of this section
of public offi-
:I in a journal
of judgments,
tute. Op.Atty.
f a c;'"', autho-
lisi, If this
te b) _..Ilot be
;h member on
, vote be unan.
18. 1962.
~elating to the
. members or
nents or com.
s a secret bal.
~r as to enable
to serve the
ncil could nol
n.. 471e, Aug.
1
!
f
i
member or II
it a submiuc:d
the minutes.
61.
.J
Jrought com-
:ing law is to
g restrictions
;ommitt~ of
,p.1993. 49/1
lot "commit-
::Ieparunent."
:Iv subject to
s. capable cI
of gO\-enUnI
MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES
body. Sovereign v. Dunn, App.1993. 498
N.W.2d 62. review denied.
Delegation of city council members who par.
ticipated in mediation sessions concerning mu-
nicipal border dispute was not "committee."
"subcommittee:' "board:' "departznent." or
"commission" of council for purposes of open
meeting law; delegation was not quorum of
council, was created informally without vote or
resolution on matter, no powers were granted
delegation by statute, ordinance. or other for-
mal action. and agreement negotiated by dele-
gation was presented to city council in open
meeting with ample opportunity for public in-
volvement. Sovereign v. Dunn, App.1993. 498
N.W.2d 62, review denied.
Open meeting requirement of this section did
not apply to committee which provided ad\ice
and consultation to university board of regents
on selection of university president, including
screening of applicants and narrowing field to
short list of finalists, where committee had only
power to recommend, not decide, members of
committee were neither regents nor appointed
by regents, and committee was not a quorum
able to transact business. The Minnesota Daily
v. University of Minnesota. App.1988, 432
N.W.2d 189. review denied.
Both county and hospital boards are subject
to provisions in Open Meeting Law [M.S.A.
~ 471.705J and accordingly are required to con.
duct their business at meetings whith are open
to public unless business to be conducted comes
within exception to law. Itasca County Bd. of
Com'rs v. Olson, App.1985. 372 N.W.2d 80.t
Nonprofit corporation organized to operate
mental health services program is not subject to
Open Meeting Law, M.S.A. ~ 471.705, Op.Atty.
Gen., 92a-30. Jan. 29, 1986.
Advisory panels of the state arts council con-
stitute "committees" of the council's governing
board and panel meetings are therefore subject
to this section. Op.Atty.Gen., 10-b, July 3,
1975.
City planning commission, as a commission
within the purview of this section, would be
?bligated to open all meetings to the public,
IIlcluding executive sessions. Op.Atty.Gen..
63a-5, Dec, 28, 1966.
17. - Capacity to act, governing bodies
~apacity to act on behalf of governing body
",:hlch renders gathering of group of public offi-
Cials subject to open meeting law is presumed
~here members of group comprise quorum.
o~ereign v. Dunn, App.1993, 498 N.W.2d 62.
reVIew denied.
~apacity to act on behalf of governing body
",:h;ch renders gathering of group of public offi.
CIa s Subject to open meeting law may arise
--
~ 471.705
Note 20
where there has been delegation of power to
group from go\"erning body. Sovereign v.
Dunn. App.1993. 498 N.\'l.2d 62. review denied.
18. - School boards, governing bodies
Superintendent of schools is not subject to
requirements and penalties of Minnesota Open
Meeting Law, not\vithstanding he is ex officio
member of school board. St. Cloud Newspa-
pers. Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools,
1983, 332 N.W.2d 1.
School superintendent, who was ex officio
member of school board but not entitled to vote,
was not a member of the "governing body" of
school district and therefore was not subject to
open meeting law, and thus telephone conversa-
tion between superintendent and board member
did not violate open meeting law. Minnesota
Educ. Ass'n v. Bennett, 1982. 321 N.W.2d 395.
In action brought to compel school board to
comply with Open Meeting Law. court should
make findings as to all of the closed meetings
held in violation of the law and as to the subject
matter thereof and injunction issued prohibiting
violation of the law should specifically enjoin
the board from holding such meetings in secret.
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School Dist.
No. 709, S1. Louis County, 1974.298 Minn. 306,
215 N.W.2d 814.
Bylaws of a school board, if repuiti~nt to the
Open Meeting Law. are of no force or effect.
Channel 10. Inc. v. Independent School Dist.
No. 709, 51. Louis County, 1974.298 Minn. 306,
2i5 N.W.2d 814.
The provisions of Laws 1957, c. 773, require
that all meetings of the school board of Minne.
apolis be public and of record. Op.Atty.Gen.,
16l-A-16(b), Nov. 20. 1957,
19. Inspection of printed materials
Subdivision 1 b of this section, which entitles
public to inspect documents at public meeting,
but which does not apply to materials classified
as other than public, did not permit oral discus.
sion of data classified as private under Govern-
ment Data Practices Act, M.S.A. 9 13.43, and
was exception to open meeting law. Annandale
Advocate v. City of Annandale, 1989. 435
N.W.2d 24, rehearing denied.
20. Tape recording
The public may tape record proceedings of
meetings where such transcription will not have
a significantly adverse effect on the order of the
proceedings or impinge on constitutionally pro-
tected rights and neither the public body nor
any member thereof may prohibit dissemination
or broadcast of the tapes. Op.Atty.Gen., 63a-5,
Dec. 4, 1972.
573
:~.
:! . ili
ij
:f
~ 471.705
Note 21
21. ValIdIty of actIons
Attempted consolidation involving a common
school district was fatally defective where
school board's initiating resolution which speci-
fied part of common school district to be con-
solidated with adjoining district was adopted at
meeting which was not open to public. Quast
v. Knutson, 1967, 276 Minn. 340, 150 N.W.2d
199.
MUNICIPALITIES
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School Dist.
No. 709, St. Louis County, 1974,298 Minn. 306,
215 N.W.2d 814.
22. Injunction
Where closed school board meetings have
been held in violation of the Open Meeting Law,
injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy. pro-
vided that such relief does not alter legislative
policy and purpose, does not except from its
terms matters not litigated, and is tailored so
that board knows with some reasonable degree
of certainty what it is restrained from doing.
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School Dist.
No. 709. St.Louis County, 1974,298 Minn. 306,
215 N.W.2d 814.
Fundamental fairness, if not due process, re-
quires that injunction issued prohibiting school
board from violating Open Meeting Law be so
tailored that the school board knows with some
reasonable degree of certainty what it is re-
strained from doing. Channel 10, Inc. v. Inde-
pendent School Dist. No. 709, St. Louis County,
1974,298 Minn. 306, 215 N.W.2d 814.
Trial court should not have used public inter-
est as a factor in determining which ads should
be enjoined under the Open Meeting Law, as
that determination is a policy decision for the
legislature. Channel 10, Inc. v, Independent
School Dist. No. 709, St. Louis County, 1974,
298 Minn. 306, 215 N.W.2d 814.
24. Parties
Television station and its news director Were
within the group of persons whom Open Meet.
ing Law was designed to protect by assuring
that meetings of school boards would be Open to
the public and thus had standing to maintain
suit to enforce that right. Channel 10, Inc. v.
Independent School Dist. No. 709, St. Louis
County, 1974,298 Minn. 306, 215 N.W.2d 814.
Finding that television station had an eco-
nomic interest in the availability of news for
dissemination at a profit assured, at least in
part, that issues involved in action to force
school board to comply with Open Meeting Law
would be vigorously and adequately presented.
Channel 10, Inc. v. Independent School Dist.
No. 709. St. Louis County, 1974,298 Minn. 306,
215 N.W.2d 814.
Element of the news media had standing 10
maintain action to restrain school board from
holding meetings in violation of the Open Meet.
ing Law in the public interest on the basis of Ihl'
public's right, implicit in the statute, to be in.
formed in a practical way by the news medi...
Channel 10, Inc. v, Independent School Disl.
No. 709, St. Louis County, 1974, 298 ~n. 306.
215 N.W.2d 814., .
25. Evidence
Evidence sustained finding that hearings alld
meetings of board of county commbsiulll'I"
with respect to detaching certain lands from
common school districts and annexing sudl
lands to independent school districts had beC'1l
open to public. Minneapolis Area Development
Corp. v. Common School Dist. No. 1870. 5':011
County, 1965, 269 Minn. 157, 131 N.W.2d 2~.
23. Practice and procedure, generally
Record's absence of evidence to support in-
tentional violation of Open Meeting Law by
school board precluded Court of Appeals from
considering matter on appeal. Bena Parent 26. Attorney-cHent privilege
Ass'n v. Independent School Dist. No. 115, Cass Attorney-client privilege exceptio~ to ofk"n.
Lake, App.1986, 381 N.W.2d 517. meeting law did not apply to permit a c1o~
Where question of hearings for discharge or session on proposed changes to nude.danclO'
termination of tenured teachers was not Iitigat- ordinance, where meeting would in\"ol\'l: ,gC'nC';(
ed in action brought to force school board to al legal advice on strengths and weakl1e"-'~
comply with Open Meeting Law, court should ordinance which might give rise to future ~lll~'
have stated that because the issue was. not Iiti- tion as opposed to strategy relating to e.'lslI, '
gated, such hearings were neither prohibited litig~tion. Northwest Publications, Inc. \'. ell)
nor permitted by the court's order. Channel of St. Paul, App.1989. 435 N.W.2d 6-1, rC'\lC'\O
10 Inc. v. Independent School Dist. No. 709, denied. .
St: Louis County, 1974. 298 Minn. 306, 215 Minnesota Open Meeting Law is not inconU\-
N.W.2d 814. tent with attorney-client privilege. andd the :;
I bl of compatible an COIK
In action to force school board to comp Y concepts ar: capa e. that ublic ocrJan
with Open Meeting Law, court should have stat- rent operation, assummg th P trust b)' n.
ed that the question of the validity of closed and attorneys do not abuse del~ to supprr..
committee meetings was not litigated and that. tending privilege as fmder~ ~onmU~king J'f1l'L~
. h h'b' d . t d bl'c observation 0 eClSlon-
they were nelt er pro lite nor permit e. pu I
574
i
i
s
c
^
R
N
M
re,
pu
sh,
ag,
be
inv,
er
I' '
hJ!
27.
Ur
for c
viola
violat
erate.
Schoe
I 471.
f
i A}
~ licen~
J there]
propc
befon
law 01
laws 1
Home n
StatutOI'}
471. 7j
Subd
tenns d
the (
)AI
E5
MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES
~ 471.71
;chool Oisl
Minn. 300:
attorney-client privilege should only be invoked
when public policy dictates need for absolute
confidentiality. Minneapolis Star & Tribune
Co. v. Housing and Redevelopment Authority In
and For City of Minneapolis, 1976,251 N.W.2d
620.
Minnesota Open Meeting Law did not require
that public be admitted to meeting between
Minneapolis housing and redevelopment au-
thority and its counsel where purpose of such
meeting was to discuss strategy in active and
immediate pending litigation and where meet-
ing was necessary as part of effort to attain
settlement of such litigation ultimately benefi-
cial to agency, individual and general public.
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Housing and
Redevelopment Authority In and For City of
Minneapolis, 1976, 251 N.W.2d 620.
Attorney-client exception to Minnesota Open
Meeting Law will almost never extend to mere
request for general legal ad.ice or opinion by
public body in its capacity as public agency;
should such exception be applied as barrier
against public access to public affairs, it will not
be tolerated, and exception is to be employed or
invoked cautiously and seldom in situations oth-
er than in relation to threatened or pending
litigation. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and
For City of Minneapolis, 1976,251 N,W.2d 620.
27. Penalty-In general
Under subd. 2 of this section which provides
for civil penalty and removal from office- for
violations of law, correct standard is whether
violation was intentional, not willful and delib-
erate. Willison v. Pine Point Experimental
School, App.1991, 464 N.W.2d 742.
'ector Werl:
)pen Meet.
,\" assuring
,,~ open \0
I maimain
10. Inc. \.
SI. loui~
W.ld 81~.
J an eco.
news for
I l~aSI in
to forCl:
,.ting law
lreSentl'd.
1001 Oi,1.
linn.30t>.
Inding 10
_ll'd from
'~n ~Il'l'l.
,is of the
o b~ in.
, m~dia.
101 Oisl.
:nn, . '
ngs &Iud
.;siUI1L"r,
Is lrum
:1! :'\lh..'1i
IJ hn'n
I.!'menl
I. S,oll
2d 29.
Trial court did not abuse discretion in dis-
missing, \\ithout prejudice, teacher's action
against school board members for violations of
Open Meeting Law, where complaint requested
that school board members be liable to teacher
in amount of $100 for each occurrence, maxi-
mum penalty provided in this section, rather
than requesting "civil penalty." Grossman v.
School ad. of I.S.D. No. 640, App.1986, 389
N.W.2d 532.
28. - Removal, penalty
In determining whether removal from office
of school board members upon their third viola-
tion of open meeting laws was justified, court
was required to determine whether there were
three separate and unrelated violations; open
meeting law does not require that meetings be
unrelated and separate. Willison v. Pine Point
Experimental School, App.1991, 464 NW.2d
742.
29. - Mitigating factors, penalty
In view of circumstances of case including
fact that action was taken by county board
members before relevant judicial decision and
in view of fact that no one was aggrieved, no
penalty was justified for violation of Open Meet-
ing Law, but boards and commissions of public
bodies would be put on notice that good faith or
lack of harm would not thereafter be defense to
action by member of the public for violation.
Merz v. Leitch, 19~4, ~42 N.W.2d 141. -f,..
Although good faith IS no defense to Minneso-
ta Open Meeting Law, it is properly considered
by trial court in defining appropriate penalty.
St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Com-
munity Schools, 1983, 332 N.W.2d 1.
471.707. License fees; notice
A home rule charter or statutory city or a town may increase the fee for a
license to own or operate a vending machine or to dispense goods or services
therefrom only after notice and hearing on the matter. Mailed notice of the
proposed change shall be sent to the persons already licensed at least 30 days
before the hearing. This section supersedes any inconsistent provision of other
law or charter.
Laws 1984. c. 393, ~ I, eff. July I, 1984.
op,'n-
do,,"!
.lIlt.:ln~
~c:nc..r.
""~ of
lilil-',l.
..i,tin~
'. lm
c..-\lcW
Cross References
Home ruie charter city, defmed:see ~ 410.015.
Statutory city. defined. see ~ 410,015.
471.71. Definitions
Subdivision 1. Terms. For the purposes of sections 471.71 to 471.83 the
terms defined in this section shall have the meanings ascribed to them unless
the context otherwise requires. .
575
,Il"ll'-
;,- l\ul
f1l..:ur.
:i~c:r'
\ ~,.
,'I"r:"
":L"",';
DYANel
DATE:
January 7, 1997
TO:
Prior Lake EDA
FROM:
Roger Guenette, Development Consultant
RE:
Status/Opportunities Within Waterfront Passage Business Park
Gross Funds Required
Less Developer Down payment
TIF Required
71,874 SF (1.65 acres)
x $2.06
$148,060
- 71.874
$76,186
I.
Parcels A & Al =
A 12,000SF building constructed in 1997 should generate $82,576 in net present value over an 11
year period via the TIF program. Assumptions utilized in this calculation include:
-- 9 years of TIF revenue 1999-2007
-- Taxes estimated @ $1.60/SF or $19.200/year
-- 90% of taxes available for TIF $17,2S0/year
-- 8% interest factor applied
__ $16,800 in accrued interest over 24 months 1997-1999
-- $10,000 allowance for administrative expense
Based upon the assumptions identified in this analysis, the City would receive a net present value
of $76,186 in TIF revenues and the developer \vould receive a cash rebate present value of $6,390 over
the term of the TIF. Thus, the net purchase price to the developer would be $65.484.
Gross Funds Required
Less Developer Down payment
TIF Required
213,444 SF (4.90 acres)
x $2.06
$439,695
- 213.445
$226,250
II.
Parcel C =
Two 25,000SF buildings constructed in 1998 and 2000, respectively should generate $319,079 in ,
net present value over an 11 year period via the TIF program. Assumptions utilized in this calculation
include:
-- 9 years of TIF revenue 2000-2008
__ Taxes estimated @ l.60/SF or $40,000/year 2000-2001 and $SO,OOO/year in 2002 and thereafter
__ 90% of taxes available for TIF, $36,000/year in 2000-2001 and $72,OOO/year in 2002 and
thereafter '
__ $99,624 in accrued interest over 48 months 1998-2002
-- $20,000 allowance for administrative expense
Business Finance and
Economic Development
Specialists
CQRPOi';CAiE OF<:::S
PO. Bex 32,:'09
t,~p:s. MN ::5432-0609
Phone: .~612) 755~ 774 i
Fcx: i~612) 755-5393
P.O. Bex 3027
Monkato, M~~ 560J2-3027
PhOne: (507) 337.7117
Fax: (507) 357-6 i i 5
Based upon the assumptions identified in this analysis, the City would receive a net present value
of $256,079 in TIF revenues and the developer would receive a cash rebate present value of $63,000 over
the term of the TIF. Thus, the net purchase price to the developer would be $150,000.
To accommodate this potential development, the City may extend an option to the developer for
the 4.9 acre parcel. Proposed option terms are as follows:
A) $10,000 non refundable payment which may be applied as reduction in the cash purchase
price of $213,444.
B) Developer must initiate construction of minimum 25,000SF facility on parcel by 12/31198 and
complete project by 12/31/99. Prior to initiation of Phase I development, developer must make cash
installment payment of $96,722. If developer fails to make installment payment and initiate Phase I
development, then option is rescinded and developer must make punitive payment of $40,000.
C) Developer must initiate construction of a second facility (or expand the initial facility) on
parcel for cumulative amount of 50,000SF by 12/31/99 and complete project by 12/31/00. Prior to
initiation of Phase II development, developer must make final cash installment payment of $106,723.
Developer will be eligible to receive net present value cash rebate of $63,000 via TIF revenue income
stream.
III.
Parcel Bl =
25.265 SF (.58 acres)
x $2,06
$52,045
Gross Funds Required
This parcel should be marketed to Keyland Homes or it will be absorbed as reduction in net sale
proceeds to the City of Prior Lake.
IV.
Vacant Parcel =
49,658 SF (1.14 acres)
This parcel may be marketed independently or sold as an expansion opportunity for the NBC
Products building.
MEMO
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
LARRY Al"\TJJERSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROGER GDt~'ETTE, ADVANCE RESOURCES
JOHN \VING.-\RD, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
BUSINESS OFFICE PARK LOT AREA CAlCULATIONS
MARCH 27,1996
TO:
We have calculated the areas of developable property in Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 of the Waterfront
Passage Addition. Please refer to the anached map for a copy of where the parcels are located.
The following outline identiries our calculations:
Parcel A = 1.51 AC
Vacant lot north of Keyland Homes up to existing drainage and utility easement. The
east edge of this lot would match the 105' expansion of the Keyland Homes lot to the
somh.
Area A = O.1~ AC
Vacate draina12eand utility, easement along north edQ.e of this lot to Q.ain an extra 20' of
- ~ - - -
\\idth to the lot. The City will need to determine if the vacation of the easement is
worth\vhile.
Parcel B (Lot 2, Block 2)
Keyland Homes original lot size (228' x 310')
= 1.62 AC
Area B1 = 0.58 AC
..:\rea oflot expansion to east by 110' by Keyland Homes (110' x 228'). This will allow
Keyland Homes to expand their existing 100' x 140' building by 100' x 150'. The
minimum setback required is 30' according to Don Rye,
Parcel C = 4.31 AC
New lot created by vacating easements on each side to help create a more useable lot
configuration.
Area Cl = 0.12 AC
Vacate drainage and utility easement on east side of Parcel C.
1620~~reek .';ve. SE, ?r:Cf Lak.e. Minnesota 55372-1714 / PI.;. 1,612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
,J..:"l EQl"?t.L C??CR-::..:::IT,:,' ~>H'LJ\"E.?,
_. . .
')
Area C2 = 0.34 AC
Vacate drainage and utility easement on west side of lot and provide wetland mitigation
to allow for filling of this wetland.
Area C3 = 0.08 AC
Area included in Parcel C located in southeast corner of lot that is difficult to develop.
Area C4 = 0.21 AC
Area included in Parcel C located in northwest corner of lot that is also difficult to
develop. This area is adjacent to Cotton~ood Lane.
NBC Products lot = 1.79 AC
Located in southeast corner of Fish Point Road and Cottonwood Lane.
Vacant Parcel = 1.14 AC
Vacant parcel south of NBC lot and north of existing drainage and utility easement.
BOPCAl.CU,DOC