Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-14 EDCCall To Order Approval Of The Agenda Minutes December 4, 2013 12 -04 -13 EDC MINUTES.PDF Unfinished And New Business Introductions MEMO.PDF City Video Tour MEMO.PDF City Newsletter Distribution MEMO.PDF Business Retention And Expansion MEMO.PDF Open Meeting Law MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT.PDF Updates TCAAP Update MEMO.PDF Commission Members Council Liaison Staff Comments Adjourn ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Ed Von Holtum  Commissioners: Dan Altstatt Dan Erickson  Steve Heikkila  Jim Huninghake David Radziej Vacant Vacant Vacant Council Liaison: Ed Werner Economic Development Commission March 5, 2014 8:00 am to 9:30 am City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 3. 3.A. Documents: 4. 4.A. Documents: 4.B. Documents: 4.C. Documents: 4.D. Documents: 4.E. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. 5.C. 5.D. 6. Call To OrderApproval Of The AgendaMinutesDecember 4, 201312 -04 -13 EDC MINUTES.PDFUnfinished And New BusinessIntroductionsMEMO.PDFCity Video Tour MEMO.PDFCity Newsletter DistributionMEMO.PDF Business Retention And Expansion MEMO.PDF Open Meeting Law MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT.PDF Updates TCAAP Update MEMO.PDF Commission Members Council Liaison Staff Comments Adjourn ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Ed Von Holtum Commissioners:Dan AltstattDan Erickson Steve Heikkila Jim HuninghakeDavid RadziejVacantVacantVacantCouncil Liaison:Ed Werner Economic Development Commission March 5, 2014 8:00 am to 9:30 am City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:4.4.A.Documents:4.B.Documents:4.C.Documents: 4.D. Documents: 4.E. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. 5.C. 5.D. 6. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2013 8:00 AM CITY HALL -- 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chair Ed von Holtum called the meeting to order at 8:12 a.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ed von Holtum and Commissioners Dan Erickson and Jim Huninghake. Also Present: Council Liaison Ed Werner, Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher, and Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was the consensus of the Commission to accept the agenda as presented. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was the consensus of the Commission to accept the November 6, 2013, meeting minutes as presented. 3. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. 2013 Annual Report Community Development Director Hutmacher provided a summary of the work completed towards the 2013 EDC goals. The 2013 Annual Report will be presented to the EDA at a joint meeting on January 27, 2014. She provided details on some of the accomplishments of the year, which included:  Recruiting a new member for the EDC.  Completing research on the history of the EDA Revolving Loan Fund and options for the future use of the program.  Co-hosting the State of the City event with the City Council.  Conducting business visits in the Round Lake District. EDC Minutes December 4, 2013 Page 2 of 5  Developing an inventory and contact list for leased commercial property  Completing an initial analysis of vacancy rates for retail, office, and industrial properties in Arden Hills compared to the metropolitan and northeast submarket averages. B. 2014 Work Plan Chair von Holtum reviewed the 2014 Work Plan. The goals for the year include new member recruitment, providing further guidance on the revolving loan fund program, conducting background research for the development of a Business Retention and Expansion (BRE) program, and continuing marketing and outreach efforts. Chair von Holtum noted that an application has been received from an individual interested in becoming a member of the EDC. He added that he knew of one other individual who had expressed an interest in joining the EDC. Chair von Holtum commented that additional feedback would be needed from the City Council before the EDC could provide further direction on the revolving loan fund program. Commissioner Huninghake recommended that staff contact other local cities that manage similar programs. He added that revolving loan programs require a significant amount of staff time and that for them to be successful, cities need to look for projects that meet their economic development goals. Community Development Director Hutmacher noted that developing a BRE program would require a significant amount of work. She explained that the extent to which the EDC would be able to work on the program in 2014 would depend in part on staffing in the 2014 City budget. Community Development Director Hutmacher suggested that the main focus of the EDC work on the BRE program in 2014 could be exploratory. This would include researching the typical components of these types of programs and contacting cities with similar initiatives. She noted that a decision could be made by the EDA at the end of 2014 on whether to move forward with establishing a BRE program in 2015. Community Development Director Hutmacher provided an overview of the planned marketing and outreach initiatives for 2014. These included planning the State of the City event, conducting outreach to Round Lake District businesses regarding the public improvement project, posting updates to the website on business and development news, and updating leased commercial property inventories. Commissioner Erickson questioned how the City was able to identify new businesses that have moved to Arden Hills. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that this is done by consulting with the City Building Official who reviews applications for building and electrical permits from new EDC Minutes December 4, 2013 Page 3 of 5 businesses. Nearly every new business makes interior improvements that require a building permit. Chair von Holtum raised concerns about the amount of traffic around the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Red Fox Road and how the Lexington Station project now under construction might exacerbate congestion in the area. Community Development Director Hutmacher noted that Ramsey County has recognized the need to complete a traffic study along this section of the Lexington Avenue corridor to help identify traffic improvement measures. It was the consensus of the Commission to accept the 2014 Work Plan as presented. C. 2014 Newsletter Topics and Assignments Community Development Director Hutmacher recommended that the EDC aim for having one article in the community newsletter every other month in 2014. Commissioners discussed topic ideas for the 2014 newsletters. Commissioner Erickson offered to write an article on Frattalone’s hardware store for the January/February 2014 newsletter. Commissioner Huninghake volunteered to do an article providing an update on recent developments in the B-2 District. The article will be submitted for the April 2014 newsletter. Chair von Holtum suggested that Commissioner Heikkila could do an article on the Round Lake District public improvements project. The article could be included in the June 2014 newsletter. Chair von Holtum offered to write an article for the December 2014 newsletter. The topic would likely be on the Lexington Station redevelopment project. D. TCAAP Community Development Director Hutmacher provided an overview of the on-site master planning workshop held at Land O’ Lakes on November 7. She noted that this was a pilot project designed to determine whether the City could reach a younger and more diverse demographic with targeted, on-site events. Chair von Holtum complimented the City on taking this creative approach to doing public outreach. Commissioner Erickson inquired if additional on-site workshops were planned. EDC Minutes December 4, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that the event at Land O’ Lakes was done in collaboration with the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce. She commented that the City would continue to work with the Chamber to set up similar types of events at local businesses in the upcoming months. Commissioner Erickson stated that it will be important for housing developments on the TCAAP site to be appropriately priced in order to attract those young professionals looking for affordable housing options. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that the Metropolitan Council will be evaluating the future extension of the planned Snelling Avenue Bus Rapid Transit line from the Rosedale Mall to TCAAP via Snelling and Hamline Avenues. The extension could also serve University of Northwestern, Bethel University, the County Road E business district, Land O’ Lakes, and Boston Scientific. Community Development Director Hutmacher reviewed the regional transportation improvements open house held on November 19 at the Ramsey County Public Works facility. The event gathered public feedback on the design options for the Highway 96/I-35W and County Road H/I-35W interchanges. Community Development Director Hutmacher provided an overview of the next steps in the TCAAP master planning process. 4. UPDATES A. Commission Members None. B. Council Liaison Council Liaison Werner noted that he will continue on as the Council Liaison to the EDC in 2014. Council Liaison Werner commented that he reviewed the proposed tax levy increases for several cities bordering Arden Hills and found that the average increase was approximately three percent. Council Liaison Werner discussed the proposed franchise fees currently being reviewed by the City Council. He noted that two public hearings will be held in February to allow the public to provide comments on the proposal. EDC Minutes December 4, 2013 Page 5 of 5 C. Staff Comments Community Development Intern Bachler provided an overview of a proposal submitted by Creative Catering for the reuse of the former Carroll’s Furniture property at 1203 County Road E. Creative Catering would repurpose the building for a banquet area, catering facilities, and retail uses. He noted that a concept plan was presented to the City Council on November 18 and that concerns were raised by the Council regarding the amount of parking that would be provided on the site. Community Development Intern Bachler explained that a Site Plan Review would be required for the proposal. He added that Creative Catering is currently working on securing shared parking agreements with businesses in the area to address the deficit of parking on the site. Community Development Director Hutmacher noted that before staff moves forward with their review of the application, signed parking agreements or formal commitments would be required. She added that it would be difficult for the City to approve the project until the parking issue was addressed. ADJOURNMENT Chair von Holtum adjourned the meeting at 9:31 a.m. __________________________ __________________________ _ Ed von Holtum, Chair Jill Hutmacher Community Development Director City of Arden Hills Economic Development Commission March 5, 2014 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 2014 EDC Agenda Item 4.A TO: Economic Development Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Commissioner Introductions The City Council appointed David Radziej to the Economic Development Commission on January 13, 2014. As this is Commissioner Radziej’s first regular EDC meeting, it may be helpful if Commissioners could introduce themselves and describe their backgrounds. City of Arden Hills Economic Development Commission March 5, 2014 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 2014 EDC Agenda Item 4.B TO: Economic Development Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: City Video Tour Requested Action Provide direction on content for the City video tour. Discussion The EDC has discussed creating a short (approximately three minutes) City video tour that could be posted on the website and that could be used as an economic development tool highlighting the City’s businesses and business districts as well as community assets that encourage private investment. The City video tour was included as a work task in the fourth quarter of 2013, however workloads related to TCAAP and staffing changes prevented the task from being accomplished. At the January 27, 2014, joint EDA/EDC work session meeting, Commissioners recommended prioritizing the City video tour. Staff has been in contact with CTV which anticipates that most of the work could be accomplished within the 100 labor hours that are included in the City’s contract with CTV. Staff plans to work with CTV to complete filming during the Spring and Summer months and to complete the entire project prior to the end of the year. Over the next few months, staff will be working with CTV on the project outline and draft narrative. Staff requests EDC direction on content for the video tour including: 1. What are the primary economic development strengths and opportunities that should be conveyed? 2. What specific businesses, business districts, views, or locations should be filmed to give a positive impression of economic development in Arden Hills? 3. To what extent should non-business assets such as neighborhoods, parks, and schools be featured? City of Arden Hills Economic Development Commission March 5, 2014 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 2014 EDC Agenda Item 4.C TO: Economic Development Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: City Newsletter Distribution Requested Action Provide comment on the distribution of the City newsletter to businesses. Discussion At the January 27, 2014, joint EDC/EDA work session meeting, EDA Commissioners directed the EDC to consider methods to improve distribution of the City newsletter to businesses. Arden Hills Notes is currently sent to all addresses in the City, including businesses, via bulk mail. Because the newsletter is sent via bulk mail, it is not addressed to specific individuals. Over the past few years, staff has been developing a business contact list which currently includes addresses, emails, and contact names for approximately 100 businesses, largely from the B-2, Round Lake, and Corporate Campus districts. This list is expected to grow when staff visits Red Fox/Grey Fox businesses in 2014. The business license list includes 141 businesses, some of which are home-based businesses which already receive the newsletter. The business license list includes contact names for many, but not all, of the licensees, but does not include email addresses. Options for improved distribution of the City newsletter to businesses include: 1. Merge the business contact list and the business license list to create a business mailing list. Labels would be printed and newsletters mailed via regular metered mail ten times each year. Due to the increase in printing, staff, and mailing costs estimated at $1,500 to $2,000 annually, City Council approval would be necessary for this option. 2. Send the newsletter via email to the business contact list. This option would have minimal staff costs. City Council approval would not be necessary. MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 2014 EDC Agenda Item 4.D TO: Economic Development Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Business Retention and Expansion Background The 2014 Economic Development Commission Work Plan includes the goal of completing research on a Business Retention and Expansion (BRE) Program and presenting recommendations to the EDA at the end of the year in order to gauge interest in developing a formal program. This memo is meant to provide a brief overview of the goals of BRE programs and the typical framework of these initiatives. Discussion Retaining and facilitating the expansion of existing businesses is an important component of any city’s strategic plan for economic development. Research shows that a significant majority of new jobs are created by existing businesses rather than by businesses attracted to a community. From a financial and staff-time perspective, focusing on the growth of existing businesses is often more efficient than enticing a new business to move into a community with public financing commitments. BRE programs help address these broad economic development policies as well as the following specific short-term and long-term goals:  Demonstrate to businesses that the community appreciates their presence  Help existing businesses solve immediate problems  Increase businesses’ ability to compete in the regional, national, and global market  Establish a strategic plan for economic development  Build community capacity to sustain growth and development BRE programs are usually organized around a three step process: research, prioritize, and implement. Step one of the process is about gathering information on current conditions in the business community. First and foremost, the scope of the study must be determined: some BRE programs are city-wide while others look at specific business districts or sectors. Next, a comprehensive survey is written and interviews are conducted with selected businesses. The collected data is then compiled for future analysis. In step two, the research completed in step one is reviewed and priority projects are identified based on the issues that surface from the data analysis. The review process also involves addressing short-term, immediate problems, or “warning flags.” Examples of warning flags might include issues with public services or the threat of a business relocating. Once the broader systemic issues are identified, project ideas that would help address these main areas of concern can be developed. The final step is to select a handful of projects that are the most likely to succeed and can easily be implemented. In step three, project teams are organized to implement the selected projects. In this final step of the BRE program, it is critical to hold regular meetings so project teams can provide updates on the status of their work and results can be evaluated. Documentation and publicity is also important during this phase to demonstrate to the business community that concrete steps are being taken to address their concerns. Following the completion of the projects, a community will need to decide how to best sustain the initiatives generated by the BRE program. Next Steps Since 1996, the University of Minnesota Extension has provided technical assistance and applied research to help communities develop and implement BRE programs. A component of their work is to train community leaders and economic development professionals on the fundamentals of BRE and City staff is currently enrolled in a ten-week course offered by the Extension. A requirement of the class is to complete a final paper, which gives participants the chance to synthesize the material covered and develop a general framework for a BRE program in their community. Following the completion of the course in late March, staff will present this paper to the EDC and ask for feedback. In the upcoming months, staff will be reaching out to other cities in the metro that have implemented BRE programs in order to learn about the successes and shortcomings of their efforts. Staff will also have discussions with the EDC on the costs and benefits of a BRE program, priorities the City should set in terms of the scope of a BRE program, and ideas on community members who could serve on a leadership team and task force. City of Arden Hills Economic Development Commission March 5, 2014 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 2014 EDC Agenda Item 4.E TO: Economic Development Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Open Meeting Law Requested Action Given that the EDC has some new Commissioners, it is appropriate to review the Minnesota open meeting law and its applicability to meetings and communication among EDC Commissioners. Discussion The State of Minnesota has an open meeting law which requires that meetings of public bodies must generally be open to the public. Under the Minnesota open meeting law, all City Council meetings and executive sessions must be open to the public with only a few exceptions. The open meeting law also requires meetings of any committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of a public body to be open to the public. For example, the governing bodies of local public pension plans, housing and redevelopment authorities, economic development authorities, and City-created corporations are subject to the open meeting law. The League of Minnesota Cities has published a handbook for Minnesota cities. The section on the open meeting law is attached. Some of the key points to remember in terms of conducting EDC business are:  Avoid discussions involving a quorum or more of EDC members either personally or electronically (phone, emails, etc.). This includes serial discussions where one EDC member talks (or sends an email) to another and so forth.  Avoid non-meeting discussions with applicants for subsidies, transactions, or land use approvals.  Meet only after providing the required public notice of special meetings. RELEVANT LINKS: Thus, if a school district is holding a special election on a particular day, no other unit of government totally or partially within the school district may hold a meeting between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. Meetings are also prohibited after 6 p.m. on the day of a major political precinct caucus. II. Open meeting law See LMC information memo, Meetings of City Councils, for more information about the open meeting law. A. Purpose Minn. Stat. § 13D.01. St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). The open meeting law requires that meetings of public bodies must generally be open to the public. It serves three vital purposes: • Prohibits actions from being taken at a secret meeting where the interested public cannot be fully informed of the decisions of public bodies or detect improper influences. • Ensures the public’s right to be informed. • Gives the public an opportunity to present its views. B. Public notice See section I-Types of council meetings and notice requirements. Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 7. Public notice generally must be provided for meetings of a public body subject to the open meeting law. The notice requirements depend on the type of meeting. However, if a person receives actual notice of a meeting at least 24 hours before the meeting, all notice requirements under the open meeting law are satisfied regardless of method of receipt. C. Printed materials Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 6. IPAD 08-015. At least one copy of the printed materials relating to agenda items that are provided to the council at or before a meeting must also be made available for public inspection in the meeting room while the governing body considers the subject matter. D. Groups governed by the open meeting law Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 465.719, subd. 9. Under the Minnesota open meeting law, all city council meetings and executive sessions must be open to the public with only a few exceptions. The open meeting law also requires meetings of any committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of a public body to be open to the public. For example, the governing bodies of local public pension plans, housing and redevelopment authorities, economic development authorities, and city-created corporations are subject to the open meeting law. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 11 RELEVANT LINKS: Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency v. Boyne, 578 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. 1998). The Minnesota Supreme Court has held, however, that the governing body of a municipal electric power agency is not subject to the open meeting law because the Legislature has granted these agencies authority to conduct their affairs as private corporations. E. Gatherings governed by the open meeting law Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). The open meeting law does not define the term “meeting.” The Minnesota Supreme Court, however, has ruled that meetings are gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body, or a quorum of a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission thereof, at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 645.08(5). For most public bodies, including statutory cities, a majority of its qualified members constitutes a quorum. Charter cities may provide that a different number of members of the council constitutes a quorum. See Section II. G. 4. for more information about serial meetings. The open meeting law does not generally apply in situations where less than a quorum of the council is involved. However, serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum that are held in order to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law may be found to violate the law, depending on the specific facts. F. Open meeting law exceptions The open meeting law is designed to favor public access. Therefore, the few exceptions that do exist are carefully limited to avoid abuse. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1(d). All closed meetings (except those closed under the attorney-client-privilege exception) must be electronically recorded at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law, the recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 5. See The Free Press v. County of Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that the county’s statement that it was closing a meeting under the attorney- client privilege to discuss “pending litigation” did not satisfy the requirement of describing the subject to be discussed at the closed meeting). IPAD 13-012. Before closing a meeting under any of the following exceptions, the public body must state, on the record, the specific grounds that permit the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. The same notice requirements that apply to open meetings also apply to closed meetings. For example, if a closed meeting takes place at a regular meeting, the notice requirements for a regular meeting apply. Likewise, if a closed meeting takes place as a special meeting or as an emergency meeting, the notice requirements for a special meeting or an emergency meeting would apply. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 12 RELEVANT LINKS: 1. Labor negotiations Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subd. 1 (b). The city council may, by majority vote in a public meeting, decide to hold a closed meeting to consider its strategy for labor negotiations, including negotiation strategies or developments or discussion of labor-negotiation proposals. The council must announce the time and place of the closed meeting at the public meeting. Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subds. 1 (d), 2. After the closed meeting, a written record of all members of the city council and all other people present must be available to the public. The council must tape-record the proceedings at city expense and preserve the tape for two years after signing the contract. The tape-recording must be available to the public after all labor contracts are signed for the current budget period. Minn. Stat. § 13D.03, subd. 3. If someone claims the council conducted public business other than labor negotiations at the closed meeting, a court must privately review the recording of the meeting. If the court finds the law was not violated, the action must be dismissed and the recording sealed and preserved. If the court determines a violation of the open meeting law may exist, the recording may be introduced at trial in its entirety, subject to any protective orders requested by either party and deemed appropriate by the court. 2. Not-public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2. The general rule is that meetings cannot be closed to discuss data that are not public under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. A meeting must be closed, however, if certain not-public data is discussed. For example, any portion of a meeting must be closed if expressly required by law or if any of the following types of not-public data are discussed: Minn. Stat. §§ 144.291-.298. • Data that would identify victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults. • Active investigative data created by a law-enforcement agency, or internal-affairs data relating to allegations of law-enforcement-personnel misconduct. • Educational, health, medical, welfare, or mental-health data that are not public data. • Certain medical records. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1(d). A closed meeting held to discuss any of the not-public data listed above must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 13 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1 (b), (c). Other not-public data may be discussed at an open meeting without liability or penalty if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body’s authority, and it is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. The public body, however, should make reasonable efforts to protect the data from disclosure. Data discussed at an open meeting retains its original classification; however, a record of the meeting shall be public. 3. Misconduct allegations or charges Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subds. 1(d), 2(b). A public body must close one or more meetings for “preliminary consideration” of allegations or charges of misconduct against an individual subject to its authority. This type of meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. If the members conclude discipline of any nature may be warranted, further meetings or hearings relating to the specific charges or allegations that are held after that conclusion is reached must be open. This type of meeting must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. 4. Performance evaluations Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subds. 1(d), 3(a). A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The public body must identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing the meeting. At its next open meeting, the public body must summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. This type of meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. If this type of meeting is closed, it must be electronically recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least three years after the meeting. 5. Attorney-client privilege Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3 (b). Brainerd Daily Dispatch, LLC v. Dehen, 693 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002). Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 435 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). Minneapolis Star & Tribune v. Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Minneapolis, 251 N.W.2d 620 (Minn. 1976). A meeting may be closed if permitted by the attorney-client privilege. Meetings between a government body and its attorney to discuss active or threatened litigation may only be closed, under the attorney-client privilege, when a balancing of the purposes served by the attorney-client privilege against those served by the open meeting law dictates the need for absolute confidentiality. The need for absolute confidentiality should relate to litigation strategy, and will usually arise only after the city has made a substantive decision on the underlying matter. This privilege may not be abused to suppress public observations of the decision-making process, and does not include situations where the council will be receiving general legal opinions and advice on the strengths and weaknesses of a proposed underlying action that may give rise to future litigation. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 14 RELEVANT LINKS: 6. Purchase or sale of real or personal property Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3 (c). A public body may close a meeting to: Minn. Stat. § 13.44, subd. 3. • Determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the public body. • Review confidential or protected nonpublic appraisal data. • Develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3 (c). Vik v. Wild Rice Watershed Dist., No. A09- 1841 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2010) (unpublished decision) (holding that this exception authorizes closing a meeting to discuss the development or consideration of a property transaction and is not limited to the discussion of specific terms of advanced negotiations). IPAD 08-001. Before holding a closed meeting under this exception, the public body must identify on the record the particular real or personal property that is the subject of the closed meeting. The closed meeting must be tape-recorded. The recording must be preserved for eight years, and must be made available to the public after all real or personal property discussed at the meeting has been purchased or sold, or after the public body has abandoned the purchase or sale. The real or personal property that is being discussed must be identified on the tape. A list of members and all other persons present at the closed meeting must be made available to the public after the closed meeting. The actual purchase or sale of the real or personal property must be approved at an open meeting, and the purchase or sale price is public data. 7. Security reports Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3 (d). Meetings may be closed to receive security briefings and reports, to discuss issues related to security systems, to discuss emergency-response procedures, and to discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services, infrastructure, and facilities, if disclosure of the information would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security procedures or responses. Financial issues related to security matters must be discussed and all related financial decisions must be made at an open meeting. Before closing a meeting under this exception, the public body must when describing the subject to be discussed, refer to the facilities, systems, procedures, services or infrastructures to be considered during the closed meeting. The closed meeting must be tape-recorded, and the recording must be preserved for at least four years. G. Common issues 1. Interviews Channel 10, Inc. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 709, 215 N.W.2d 814 (Minn. 1974). The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a school board must interview prospective employees for administrative positions in open sessions. The court reasoned that the absence of a statutory exception indicated that the Legislature intended such sessions to be open. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 15 RELEVANT LINKS: As a result, a city should conduct any interviews of prospective officers and employees at an open meeting if a quorum or more of the city council will be present. Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual councilmembers conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a city position in one-on-one closed interviews. The district court found that no “meeting” of the council had occurred because there was never a quorum of the council present during the interviews. The court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for a determination of whether the councilmembers had conducted the interview process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, No. C9-98- 677 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 1998) (unpublished decision). On remand, the district court found that the individual interviews were not done to avoid open-meeting-law requirements. This decision was also appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process should first consult their city attorney. 2. Informational meetings and committees St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that informational seminars about school-board business, which the entire board attends, must be noticed and open to the public. As a result, it appears that any scheduled gatherings of a quorum of a city council must be properly noticed and open to the public, regardless of whether the council takes or contemplates taking action at that gathering. This includes meetings where members receive information that may influence later decisions. Many city councils create committees to make recommendations regarding a specific issue. Commonly, such a committee will be responsible for researching the issue and submitting a recommendation to the council for its approval. These committees are usually advisory, and the council is still responsible for making the final decision. This type of committee may be subject to the open meeting law. A.G. Op. 10-b (July 3, 1975). For example, the attorney general has advised that an advisory panel of the State Arts Council that was charged with making recommendations regarding which individuals and organizations should be funded for artistic projects was a committee subject to the open meeting law. IPAD 07-025. In contrast, the commissioner of the Department of Administration has advised that a city’s Free Speech Working Group consisting of people including city officials appointed by the city to meet to develop and review strategies for addressing free-speech concerns relating to a political convention that was going to be held in the city was not subject to the open meeting law. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: The advisory opinion’s conclusion was primarily based on the fact that the group did not have decision-making authority. A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28, 1996). Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). IPAD 07-025. City councils also routinely appoint individual councilmembers to act as liaisons between the council and particular council committees. These committee meetings may also be subject to the open meeting law. In addition, notice for a special meeting of the city council may be needed if a quorum of the council will be present at the meeting and will be participating in the discussion. Thuma v. Kroschel, 506 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Aug. 28, 1996). For example, when a quorum of a city council attended a meeting of the city’s planning commission, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that there was a violation of the open meeting law—not because the councilmembers attended the meeting—but because the councilmembers conducted public business in conjunction with that meeting. Based on this decision, the attorney general has advised that mere attendance by councilmembers at a meeting of a council committee, held in compliance with the open meeting law, would not constitute a special council meeting requiring separate notice. The attorney general cautioned, however, that the additional councilmembers should not participate in committee discussions or deliberations absent a separate special-meeting notice of a city council meeting. 3. Social gatherings St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). Moberg v. Indep. Sch.. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982). Social gatherings of city councilmembers would not be considered a meeting subject to the open meeting law as long as there is not a quorum present; or, if a quorum is present, as long as the quorum does not discuss, decide, or receive information on official city business. The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a conversation between two city councilmembers over lunch about a special-use-permit application did not violate the open meeting law because a quorum of the council was not present. 4. Serial gatherings Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less than a quorum of a public body held serially to avoid a public meeting or to fashion agreement on an issue of public business may violate the open meeting law. Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). The Minnesota Court of Appeals considered a situation where individual councilmembers conducted separate, serial interviews of candidates for a city position in one-on-one closed interviews. The district court found that no “meeting” of the council had occurred because there was never a quorum of the council present during the interviews. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 17 RELEVANT LINKS: However, the court of appeals sent the case back to the district court for a determination of whether the councilmembers had conducted the interview process in a serial fashion to avoid the requirements of the open meeting law. Mankato Free Press v. City of North Mankato, No. C9-98- 677 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 1998) (unpublished decision). On remand, the district court found that the individual interviews were not done to avoid open-meeting-law requirements. This decision was also appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. Cities that want to use this type of interview process with job applicants should first consult their city attorney. 5. Training sessions Compare St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). and A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5, 1975). It is not clear whether the participation of a quorum or more of the members of a city council in a training program would be defined as a meeting under the open meeting law. The determining factor would likely be whether the program includes a discussion of general training information or a discussion of specific matters relating to an individual city. A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Feb. 5, 1975). The attorney general has advised that a city council’s participation in a non- public training program devoted to developing skills was not a meeting subject to the open meeting law. However, the opinion also advised that if there were to be any discussions of specific city business by the attending members, either outside or during training sessions, it could be a violation of the open meeting law. 6. Technology Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). It is not clear how the open meeting law applies to technology, such as e- mail or telephone calls. Although the law does not specifically address the use of email, telephone calls, and other technology, it is possible that any form of communication between councilmembers or members of other public bodies could violate the open meeting law under certain circumstances. O’Keefe v. Carter, No. A12- 0811 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2012) (unpublished decision). An unpublished 2012 decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that e-mail communications are not subject to the open meeting law because they are written communications and are not a “meeting” for purposes of the open meeting law. The court of appeals’ decision also concluded that even if the e-mail messages were subject to the open meeting law, the substance of the e-mails in question did not contain the type of discussion that would be required for a prohibited “meeting” to have occurred. The court noted that the substance of the e-mail messages was not important and controversial; instead, they discussed a relatively straightforward operational matter. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 18 RELEVANT LINKS: The decision also noted that the town board members did not appear to make any decisions in their e-mail messages. Because this decision is unpublished, it is not binding on other courts. In addition, the outcome of this decision might have been different if the substance of the e-mails had related to something other than operational matters, for example, if the substance of the e-mails were attempting to build agreement on a particular issue that was going to be presented to the town board at a future meeting. See LMC information memo, Electronic Communications Between Councilmembers. IPAD 09-020. In addition, serial discussions between less than a quorum of the council could violate the open meeting law. As a result, city councils and other public bodies should take a conservative approach and should not use e- mail, telephone calls, and other technology to communicate back and forth with other members of the public body if both of the following circumstances exist: • A quorum of the council or public body will be contacted regarding the same matter. • City business is being discussed. Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 7. Another thing councilmembers should be careful about is which e-mail account they use to receive e-mails relating to city business because such e- mails would likely be considered government data that is subject to a public- records requests under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The best option is for each councilmember to have an individual e-mail account that the city provides and city staff or contracted staff manage. However, this is not always possible for cities due to budget, size, or logistics. If councilmembers don’t have a city e-mail account, there are some things to think about before using a personal e-mail address for city business. First, preferably only the councilmember has access to the personal e-mail. Using a shared account with other family members could lead to incorrect information being communicated from the account, or incoming information being inadvertently deleted. Also, since city e-mails are government data, city officials may have to separate personal e-mails from city e-mails when responding to a public-records request. Second, is the account you want to use for city business tied to your private employer? Most likely your employer has a policy that restricts this kind of use. However, it your employer allows this type of use, be aware that in the event of a public-records request or litigation request, your employer may be compelled to have a search done of your company e-mail or to restore files from a backup or archive. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 19 RELEVANT LINKS: See Handbook, Chapter 27 for more information about records management. What may work best is to utilize a free third-party e-mail service, such as g- mail or Hotmail, for your city account, and avoid using that e-mail account for any personal e-mail or for anything that may constitute an official record of city business since such records must be retained in accordance with the state records retention requirements. H. Advisory opinions 1. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration Minn. Stat. § 13.072, subd. 1 (b). See IPAD for an index of advisory opinions by topic. The commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration has authority to issue non-binding advisory opinions on certain issues related to the open meeting law. A $200 fee is required. The Information Policy Analysis Division (IPAD) of the Department of Administration handles these requests. See Requesting an Open Meeting Law Advisory Opinion from IPAD. A public body subject to the open meeting law can request an advisory opinion from the commissioner. A person who disagrees with the manner in which members of a governing body perform their duties under the open meeting law can also request an advisory opinion. 2. Minnesota Attorney General Minn. Stat. § 8.07. See index of Attorney General Advisory Opinions from 1993 to present. The Minnesota Attorney General is authorized to issue written advisory opinions to city attorneys on “questions of public importance.” The Attorney General has issued several advisory opinions on the open meeting law. I. Penalties Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 1. Claude v. Collins, 518 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1994). Any person who intentionally violates the open meeting law is subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty of up to $300 for a single occurrence. The public body may not pay the penalty. A court may take into account a councilmember’s time and experience in office to determine the amount of the civil penalty. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 2. 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. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4. See LMC information memo, Open Meeting Law Defense Coverage, for information about insurance coverage for open-meeting-law violations. The court may also award reasonable costs, disbursements, and attorney fees of up to $13,000 to any party in an action alleging a violation of the open meeting law. The court may award costs and attorney fees to a defendant only if the action is found to be frivolous and without merit. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 20 RELEVANT LINKS: A public body may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees incurred by or awarded against any of its members. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4. If a party prevails in a lawsuit under the open meeting law, an award of reasonable attorney fees is mandatory if the court determines that the public body was the subject of a prior written advisory opinion from the commissioner of the Department of Administration, and the court finds that the opinion is directly related to the lawsuit and that the public body did not act in conformity with the opinion. A court is required to give deference to the advisory opinion. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 4 (d). Coalwell v. Murray, No. C6-95-2436 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug 6, 1996) (unpublished decision). Elseth v. Hille, No A12-1496 (Minn. Ct. App. May 13, 2013) (unpublished decision). No monetary penalties or attorney fees may be awarded against a member of a public body unless the court finds there was intent to violate the open meeting law. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 3 (a). Brown v. Cannon Falls Township, 723 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). If a person is found to have intentionally violated the open meeting law in three or more separate actions involving the same governing body, that person must forfeit any further right to serve on the governing body or in any other capacity with the public body for a period of time equal to the term of office the person was serving. Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subd. 3 (b). If a court finds a separate, third violation that is unrelated to the previous violations, it must declare the position vacant and notify the appointing authority or clerk of the governing body. As soon as practicable, the appointing authority or governing body shall fill the position as in the case of any other vacancy. Minn. Const. art. VIII, § 5. Jacobsen v. Nagel, 255 Minn. 300, 96 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1959). Under the Minnesota Constitution, the Legislature may provide for the removal of public officials for malfeasance or nonfeasance. To constitute malfeasance or nonfeasance, a public official’s conduct must affect the performance of official duties and must relate to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public. Jacobsen v. Nagel , 255 Minn. 300, 96 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1959). Claude v. Collins, 518 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1994). “Malfeasance” refers to evil conduct or an illegal deed. “Nonfeasance” is described as neglect or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to perform what is a public officer’s legal duty to perform. More likely than not, a violation of the open meeting law would be in the nature of nonfeasance. Although good faith does not nullify an open-meeting-law violation, good faith is relevant in determining whether a violation amounts to nonfeasance. Sullivan v. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. 170, 217 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1974). In re D & A Truck Line, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). The open meeting law does not address whether actions taken at a meeting that does not comply with its requirements would be valid. Minnesota courts have generally refused to invalidate actions taken at an improperly closed meeting. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 21 RELEVANT LINKS: Lac Qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed Dist. v. Wollschlager, No. C6-96- 1023 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 1996) (unpublished decision). Quast v. Knutson, 276 Minn. 340, 150 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1967). But the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that an attempted school district consolidation was fatally defective when the initiating resolution was adopted at a meeting that was not open to the public. III. Meeting procedures A. Citizen involvement Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 6. Any person may observe council meetings. In fact, the council should encourage citizen attendance to help raise awareness of the city’s problems and help create support for programs suggested by the council. Citizens must be able to hear the discussion at a meeting, and must be able to determine who votes for or against a motion. One copy of the agenda and of all materials made available to the council must be made available to the audience unless doing so would violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 2. Although anyone can attend council meetings, citizens cannot speak or otherwise participate in any discussions unless the mayor or the presiding officer recognizes them for this purpose. The decision to recognize speakers is usually up to the mayor or presiding officer, but the council can overrule this decision. The council can, through a motion, decide to hear one or more speakers from the audience. Participation in council meetings can be intimidating for the average citizen. Councils should make sure citizens are invited to participate when appropriate and listened to with courtesy. Individual councilmembers should not argue with citizens. Citizens attend council meetings to give information for the council to consider. Discussions or debates between individual councilmembers and citizens during council meetings is inappropriate and may reflect badly on the decision-making process. B. Recording and broadcast of meetings A.G. Op. 63a-5 (Dec. 4, 1972). The public may make an audio or videotape of an open meeting if doing so does not have a significantly adverse impact on the order of the meeting. The city council may not prohibit dissemination or broadcast of the tape. Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 7. Cities may also choose to record council meetings. The recording is a government record that must be kept in compliance with the city’s record- retention policy. It must also be made available to the public if it contains public data. League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/14/2013 Meetings, Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances Chapter 7 | Page 22 Page 1 of 2 DATE: March 5, 2014 EDC Agenda Item 5.A TO: Economic Development Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: TCAAP Update Requested Action None. STEAM Learning Center at TCAAP In February a group of City, County, Rice Creek Watershed District, and St. Paul Chamber of Commerce staff worked with 7th Grade students at Chippewa Middle School to provide a practical, hands-on learning experience related to the TCAAP redevelopment. Staff engaged groups of students on natural resource planning, parks and recreation, roads, recycling, and building. This project is part of the “STEAM Learning Center at TCAAP” which is designed to support the school district’s STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and math) curriculum while also providing students with a unique look at vocational opportunities. The “STEAM Learning Center at TCAAP” has been a project of the TCAAP Redevelopment Partnership (TRP). The TRP supports elements of the redevelopment project related to community engagement and building business and legislative support for the project. The student engagement exercise was featured in KARE 11’s “Cool in School” feature on Thursday, February 20, 2014. TCAAP Master Plan The City Council has directed staff to proceed with a surface water management study that will consider issues related to drainage and stormwater infrastructure. Staff has met with Rice Creek Watershed District staff to discuss the scope of work for the surface water management study. The City and RCWD are discussing how to proceed with the study in a manner that will simplify the future permitting process. MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 Developer interviews to gather feedback on the draft Master Plan have been completed. Overall, feedback from developers and the public has been very positive. The consultants are compiling comments which will be presented to the City Council in March.