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�"-