2001_0827_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Questions: 1. Were Public ft�nds used? Extent'? 2. Was expense reimbursement sought? 3. What are the �tmits of [those listed] public authority? 4. Did [those lis�ed] say they represented the city? 5. How did the group come to a decision about this meeting in congruence with open meeting rules? Background as given in an interview with Joel Jamnick, city attorney (07/17/Ol) and by Thomas Paschke, city planner and by Dennis Welsch, director of community development: A lawsuit was brought against the city of Roseville by Neilson and Everest stemming from a 1994 council decision (Dean Maschka, Ed Burrell, and Steve Sarkozy would ha�e been present or involved in this c�ecision) to offer Computype a loan. Computype had considered moving to a properiy in Moundsview owned by Nielson. With Computype's decision to remain in Roseville, Nielson lost the renq� they might ha�e paid. Nielson contends the council's decision was in retaliation for some things Nielson had said. A jury found that, although the possibility of retaliation was present, other motivating factors were also present, so this part of the lawsuit was dismissed. A second question in the lawsuit has yet to receive an opinion by the judge. Did the city use TIF' rather than one of its other loan options in making the loan to Computype (the properiy was not allowable under TIF rules) or did the change of TIF statutes by the city (and the state) result due to prejudice against Nielson/Everest? In fact, the money was co-mingled. The city contends it was not a TIF loan. One part of this allegation was dismissed by the judge in that it was brought under subsection 2 (which does not allow for a lawsuit to be brought against a city by an individual). As I understand it, this is the legislation that was inserted into an omnibus bill brought forward at the capitol and is the one in the question of Mayor Kysylyczyn's introduction of Nielson to some � legislators at the capitol building. The legislation was to allow a lawsuit by an individual against a city under subsection 2, and was to be retroactive, which would change the dismissal by the judge in this case. The council had formally decided to defend against N.'s lawsuit and had appointed Wiski and Maschka as assistants from the council in these particular litigation issues. It appears, then, tha� our question is whether Maschka acted in this role or in some other role for another reason. A separate question might be whether 7ohn K. acted against the city in this regard or in conjunction with a belief that the council's 1994 decision was erroneous.