The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9.a. U of M Task Force MeetingF) ci 130X 5111 C Z� 2875-145 11 1 r T. W. • ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 1,5068 osemoun 612 423-4411 January 15, 1988 TO: Mayor Hoke Councilmembers: Napper Oxborough Walsh Wippermann FROM: Stephan Jilk, Administrator/Clerk RE: University of Minnesota Task Force The first meeting of the task force for better communication was set up by the University of Minnesota and held on Friday the 8th of January. There are twelve regular members of the committee, three ex -officio members representing the University and two University support staff members provided to take minutes, update committee members handbooks, etc. The regular members of the task force are Joe Auge Marie Jensen John Poepl Richard Brand Steve Jilk Warren Sifferath Janine Butler Steve Loeding Gerald Stelzel Ronald Carlson Donald McGuire Ed Terry The ex -officio members and support staff representing the University are: Vice President Dick Sauer Kathy Boudreau, Vice President William Thomas Karen Schuller, Clifford Wilcox, Supt. Ag. Exp. Sta. Admin. Ag. Ex.Sta. Following opening comments by Cliff Wilcox, Agriculture Experimental Station Director, each member of the task force was asked to give a brief background statement about themselves. Discussion then centered on the purpose of the task force from each members perspective. It was at this time that I and Steve Loeding took the opportunity to raise the following concerns. (1) That the task force may be no more than a method of getting a few interested citizens together to discuss the operation of the agriculture research center operations. (2) That the information discussed and recommendations submitted by this task force would "fall on deaf ears" at the University level. • 0 Mayor and Councilmembers University of Minnesota Task Force Page 2 (3) That the real issues of concern, as seen by the City of Rosemount and Dakota County would never be addressed. Issues such as pollution, land use control, long range planning, local control by the city and county, response by someone with some real authority in the University to issues raised by the city and county and designation of a person in the University structure to contact with important issues were brought out. I advised the task force members and reminded University representatives that following the meeting with President Ken Keller, the city felt that there was a real commitment on behalf of the University to address, with sincerity, the issues important to the city. I addressed those issues and further related the total frustration, on behalf of the city since that meeting and how the city felt let down yet another time because that commitment had not been followed up on. My feelings were that Vice President Bauer was sincere in his commitment to hold some meaningful discussions now and seemed to not only understand but also sympathize with the city and countys' frustrations. He pledged his commitment to improvement in communications and cooperation. It seemed at this point that the task force members started to grasp the seriousness of the work ahead for us if that work was to be at all meaningful. Discussion then focused in on the functioning of the committee, the adoption of bylaws, avenues for information to flow between the task force and the University, sources of information for the task force, use of University staff and meeting schedules. Several items were decided: (1) The task force would meet at least once a month, the next meeting being January 29th, 1988, at 1:00 P.M. The locations of the meetings to rotate to several sites, these being the Agricultural Experiment Station office, the research station office, DCAVTI, and City Hall. (2) The city, county and University would all present a list of items, important to them, to discuss by the task force. These lists would all be prioritized and the task force, through discussion could decide how each item could be researched, discussed and decided on. Mayor and Councilmembers University of Minnesota Task Force Page 3 (3) When making decisions and recommendations to the University and other affected parties such as the county and city, task force members voting in the minority would provide a narrative of "their side" of the issue so both sides could be considered. This was seen as an important factor in the operation and success of the committee. (4) By laws would be reviewed and adopted at the next meeting. (5) University personnel, such as real estate department personnel, city resource people, other city staff, county staff or relevant resource people would be called upon to be part of the task force meetings when members requested. This would allow a more realistic and thorough understanding of issues brought to the task force. Though I have said it before, and have been let down, I believe a commitment has been made to accomplish, at least good communication between the city, county and University. Whether or not issues of concern will be resolved or not, time will tell. I have sent a letter to the University (copy attached) to let them know what our continuing frustrations are and our concern for meaningful discussions at this juncture. I have sent this on to President Keller and the Regents to insure that they are informed. Based upon the magnitude and the intensity of some of the issues before us, I believe our involvement with the University task force will be time consuming but, in the end, beneficial. In light of the resolution passed at our last council meeting and with a positive feeling about this task force, I would suggest that a request is made to do one of two things. Either expand the task force to include at least one more member from the city and county or utilize our designated representatives, both city and county as a subcommittee to represent our positions, through myself, on the existing task force. Considering the time involvement I would suggest the latter. I believe that we, as a subcommittee can develope a more complete position on matters regarding the city to present to the task force. This final issue can be discussed. ij of t] V (�;Klosemount Mr. William C. 'Thomas Assoc. Vice President, Personnel University of Minnesota 317 Morrill Hall 100 Church Street S. E. Minneapolis, MN 55455 RE: Rosemount Advisory Council Dear Bill: • P.O. 510 2975-14�irHtI ST. W. ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068 612-423 4411 January 15, 1988 I would like to thank you, on behalf of the City of Rosemount, for your support and cammitment to the Rosemount Advisory Council. Through the efforts of this Council the City places its' hopes for the betterment of communications, relations, cooperation, and mutual benefit to the University, Dakota County and surrounding communities including Rosemount. I would have to say that the frustrations surrounding the operation of curtain aspects of the University in Rosemount are at a peak right now and the feeling toward the University, by at least the City, may well be at a long time low. As I explained at our first Advisory Council meeting, the City felt a commitment had been made by President Keller to us in our meeting with him in March of 1987. A letter of follow up to that meeting (copy attached) from Vice President Lilly seemed to echo that commitment. Almost one full year later after threatening a loss of fire protection by the City in order to get information from the University regarding materials stored on site, a lack luster, almost embarrassing proposition for payment in lieu of taxes, a callused response to a letter requesting payment for CR#42 construction costs and a fiasco over a non - permitted dumping of fill material at the ''Bomb Squad':' site, we now have, what we hope, is a real beginning. William Thomas U of M Rosemount Page 2 I may have come on a bit strong at our first session but I believe I was much more restrained than some of our elected officials would have been at this juncture. We see the extreme need for this communication vehicle and want to believe it is going to work. If is not successful in carrying the information both ways in this relationship, we will all suffer from exasperation and the University will be forced to face the issues at hand through a much different atmosphere. 'Let's make it work. Ate ely n Alk Administrat /Clerk lj Enclosure cc: President Ken Keller Vice President Lilly County Commissioner Loeding Mayor Hoke City Councilmembers University Board of Regents PJ), BOX 510 City 2$75-149 TN �,T W.AWL Aft e �y,� ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA' Wfig : } osemoun 612 -423 4411 January 15, 1988 Richard Sauer Vice Pres. Agricultural Experiment Station 220 Coffee Hall St. Paul, MN 55108 RE: Rosemount Advisory Council Dear Dick: I would like to thank you, on behalf of the City of Rosemount, for your support and commitment to the Rosemount Advisory Council. Through the efforts of this Council the City places its' hopes for the betterment of communications, relations, cooperation, and - mutual benefit to the University, Dakota County and surrounding communities including Rosemount. I would have to say that the frustrations surrounding the operation of certain aspects of the University in Rosemount are at a peak right now and the feeling toward the University, by at least the City, may well be at a long time low. As I explained at our first Advisory Council meeting, the City 'felt a commitment had been made by President Keller to us in our meeting with him in March of 1987. A letter of follow up to that meeting (copy attached) from Vice President Lilly seemed to echo that commitment. Almost one full year later after threatening a loss of fire protection by the City in order to get information from the University regarding materials stored on site, a lack luster, almost embarrassing proposition for payment in lieu of taxes, a callused response to a letter requesting payment for CR#42 construction costs and a fiasco over a non -permitted dumping of fill material at the "Bomb Squad" site, we now have, what we hope, is a real beginning. I may have come on a bit strong at our first session but I believe I was much more restrained than some of our elected officials would have been at this juncture. We see the extreme need for this communication vehicle and want to believe it is going to work. Richard Sauer U of M Rosemount Page 2 If it is not successful in carrying the information bath ways in this relationship, we will all suffer from exasperation and the University will be forced to face the issues at hand through a much different atmosphere. Let's make it work. 4rey,Alk, Administrator Jerk lj Enclosure cc: President Ken Keller Vice President Lilly County Commissioner Loeding Mayor Hoke City Councilmembers University Board of Regents II 0 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Mr. Vernon J. Napper, Councilman City of Rosemount Mr. Dean R. Johnson, Director of Community Development City of Rosemount / Mr. Stephan Ji1k Administrator/Clerk City of Rosemount Gentlemen: • Office of the Vice President for Finance and Operations 301 Morrill Hall 100 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 (612)625-4555 March 27, 1987 E C F V E D MAR 3 .. 37 CLERK'S oFFICE CITY OF ROSEMOONT It was a great pleasure for Kenneth Keller, Stanley Kegler and me to meet with you today to discuss various ways that the University and the City of Rosemount could work closer together. As we explained to you, there's been considerable reorganization here at the University in the last year, and the Rosemount property administration has been assigned to me by the President, and I have delegated the responsibility to Bill Thomas, our Associate Vice President. We discussed many things, such as ground and water pollution, radio towers, air fields, and various businesses that are located on the University property. We also discussed the long-range future of the Rosemount property and the desire of the University to plan on disposing of the property when it was economically feasible. We agreed that we would work closely with the City as to possible uses in the interim and as to how the ultimate disposal should be handled. We would like very much to discuss with you the whole problem of non -property, taxpaying establishments being located on University property, and we would welcome any suggestions. We also will give it some thought and would look forward to meetings of Bill Thomas, me and your people when appropriate. Sincerely yours, i David Lilly Vice President for Finance DML/pj and Operations cc: President Kenneth H. Keller Vice President Stanley B. Kegler Mr. William C. Thomas �,r (p�j'�' 10--432-SI 34-01ek)0-010-57 4-2LJ3 10 711 _A3 Aq _ -zet 9 t $ 17 _ 1 rte--' .� r•---� /:C� r �•^.�1q �� .' _ -.. \� \ - 24 23 > 30 A3 27 2S /28 30 29 23 ~UNIVEFi$lTY 9F IMNJNESOTA % M — tt � AGRICULTURAL App _ •'�'-- '------ — — - « ._ — +- RESEARCH .. exvea *NT _ mC - MiN CENTER M`- : > ,, s _ ±� STATION E;, -- — - _` �_- -- — 6v +tet- Z6 i. •. ROSEMOUNT 9 MINNESOTA PREPARED BY SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC. ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 1 CHIPPEWA FALLS. WISC. SCAU IN FM 0 2000 4000 8000