Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.h. Letter to City Council Regarding Unauthorized Representation of City(Pity of (Rosemount PHONE (612) 423.4411 2675 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota FAX (612) 423.5203 Mailing Andress: P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068.0510 February 4, 1993 The Honorable Edward B. McMenomy, Jr. Mayor, and Members of the City Council City of Rosemount P_.0. Box 510 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: MAYOR Edward B. McMenomy COUNCILMEMSERS Sheila Klassen James (Red) Staats Harry Willcox Dennis Wippermann ADMINISTRATOR . Stephan Jilk I am writing this letter to you at the request of the members of the Rosemount Port Authority. The purpose of the letter is to suggest a course of action to the City Council regarding communications with local property owners with which the City Council and Port Authority have business dealings. After considerable thought and discussion, the Port Authority has adopted a Resolution (copy attached), which mandates that Port Authority members limit their communication with persons whose property we wish to acquire, persons to whom which we wish to provide real estate opportunities, et cetera, to either communication through Port Authority staff or in the course of official meetings of the Port Authority. In other words, we are attempting to avoid private communications between Port Authority members and persons affected by our actions and, accordingly, avoid the confusion and misapprehensions which may result from those private communications. Also, it has been brought to the Port Authority's attention that a member of the Rosemount City Council has met with and rendered advice to property owners whose land is being acquired for the armory/community center project. While the Port Authority is not attempting to control the City Council's actions, we do believe that "off the record" communications of this nature do not further and may impede the open, arm's length dealings to acquire and with others we are doing business with. Further, such interaction may give rise to various interpretations as to what is said or promised, resulting in both confusion and hard feelings. Consequently, the Port Authority would strongly recommend to the City Council that you consider adopting a Resolution similar in nature to that resolved by the Port Authority. The Port Authority members deeply appreciate the guidance and support offered by the Rosemount City Council and hope that this recommendation is considered in the positive spirit in which it is offered. Sincerely, Port Authority Chairperson l6verylkt-ngs Doming (UP RosemounlP CITY OF ROSEMOUNT PORT AUTHORITY DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 1993 - A RESOLUTION OF POLICY ON PORT AUTHORITY COMMUNICATIONS WHEREAS, the Rosemount Port Authority is desirous of undertaking communications with persons who may be affected by Port Authority actions in an open and professional manner; and WHEREAS, the Port Authority wishes to avoid communications and interaction outside of the official undertakings of the Authority or its staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Rosemount Port Authority as follows: That Rosemount Port Authority members, except for discussions taking place at Port Authority meetings or conducted through members of the Port Authority staff, shall avoid any communications regarding official activities of the Port Authority with persons from whom the Port Authority is acquiring property, individuals for who the Port Authority may be acquiring property and any other persons directly benefiting from the specific actions of the Port Authority. Adopted this 8th day of February, 1993. ATTEST: Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against:- Port Authority Chairperson Seconded by: GRANNIS, GRANNIS, HAUGE, EIDE, ANDERSON &. KELLER, P.A. PAU: �? HAUGE VAN.:E : GRANMS. jr ✓,EV1%e: _ICE G KELL=_R F. l_ZRSON A ,si: acm.inez :o rrac:ice in W!scors,r. Honorable Mayor and Rosemount City Hall 2875 - 145th Street Rosemount, MN 55068 Attorneys and Counselors ut blu• 200 Torn Centre Professional Bldg. 1260 Yankee Doodle Road Ea -an. Minnesota 55121-2201 lel: (612) i56-9000 January 22, 1993 City Council Members Dear Mayor and Council Members: MICHAEL J MAYER :)=BRA E ScHfAIDa BARRY L W;TTENY.ELLER R GRZNNIS. SR O' Co;;nse =a> i5�2.c5c-.232 As you may be aware, we had signed Retainer Agreements with two of the landowners whose properties are to be condemned for the Armory site adjacent to Highway 3, in the City of Rosemount. We had also been approached by a third landowner to represent him. We were very disturbed to learn from our clients that our clients had been contacted by a representative of the Rosemount City Council, Mr. Wilcox, who approached our clients and advised them that they needed "better legal representation" and that they should take the initiative and sue the City of Rosemount! Our clients further stated that Mr. Wilcox went so far as to specifically recommend Gerald Duffy and Josiah Brill as the attorneys they should obtain. Although this in itself might constitute tortious interference with contract, we are not interested in raising that issue. The purpose of this letter is to simply inquire as to why the City of Rosemount believes we are not capable of representing its citizens, and why a Council member would encourage actions against the City he represents. Our office not only has a long history of representing municipalities in condemnation matters, but has represented many, many private landowners in condemnation actions instituted by both the State of Minnesota and various governmental agencies. We believe that we are eminently qualified to handle any condemnation action that may be brought against our clients. That is why we are very concerned that a client of ours would understand a City Council Member to say that the client needs a "better attorney" in order to be adequately represented in an action brought by the City to condemn the client's property. Is the City willing to give a "better deal" Honorable Mayor and City Council January 22, 1993 Page Two to people represented by another law firm? We certainly hope this is not the situation, and suggest you discuss 7 this entire matter with your City Attorney. We believe we are entitled to a prompt explanation of why the City did not want us representing our client. Sincerely yours, GRANNIS,_GRANNIS, HAUGE, EIDE ANDERSON & KELLER, P.A. I BY: David G. Keller DGK/svk cc: Michael Miles / Stephen Jilk�"-