HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. Discussion of Draft Comprehensive Plan Update
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Shakopee Planning Commission
Shakopee Economic Development Advisory Committee
Shakopee Environmental Advisory Committee
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Workshop on Draft Comprehensive Plan Update Sections Pertaining to
Marschall Road District, West End/Jackson Township District, Natural
Resources Plan, and Overall Land Use Plan
MEETING DATE: April 14, 2003
INTRODUCTION:
On Monday, April 7th, the Downtown and First A venue/Riverfront Districts were discussed. On
Monday, April 14th beginning at 5:30 p.m., discussion will focus on the West End and Marschall
Road districts, natural resources plan, and the overall land use plan mapping. Please bring your
copies of the Update to the meeting.
Another meeting is scheduled to begin in the Council Chambers at 7 :30 p.m. the same night, so the
meeting will have to be adjourned by that time.
Please let me know if you have any questions before the workshop.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide staff and the consultant with direction, by motion, regarding additional information or
changes needed, if any. Provide staff with direction as to whether to proceed with scheduling public
open houses to obtain public input.
4-~~
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
G:\CC\2003\04-15\compplanmemo0410.doc- I -
)--
City of Shakopee
Comprehensive
Plan Update
2nd DRAFT
March 7, 2003
/ Northwest Associated
~ Consultants, Inc.
.... .... '. ...'~ 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 555
, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
".:!~i' Phone: 952-595-9636
< Facsimile: 952-595-9837
e-mail: pJanners@nacplanning.com
0/4 TRG( e.
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
&
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
htto://www.kennedv-graven.com
CHARTERED
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: James J. Thomson, City Attorney
DATE: April 11 , 2003
SUBJECT: Open Meeting Law Issues
You have asked me to provide a brief summary of situations that can cause potential problems
under the open meeting law. It is important that all elected and appointed officials are aware of
those situations because violations of the open meeting law can result in significant consequences.
For example, a public official who violates the open meeting law is subject to a personal fine up to
$300 and forfeiture of office for three or more violations. In addition, a court could award attorney's
fees up to $13,000 to a party who prevails in an open meeting law lawsuit.
For purposes of the open meeting law, a "meeting" is the gathering of a quorum or more of the
members of a public body, including appointed boards of commissions, where public business is
transacted. That does not mean, however, that a "meeting" will occur in all situations where a
quorum of a public body is present. Chance or social gatherings are not within the definition of a
meeting as long as public business is not discussed. In addition, court decisions interpreting the
open meeting law examine whether the members were receiving information or discussing public
business "as a group."
With this background, here are a few situations where elected or appointed members of a public
body must be careful:
1. Attendance at other meetin2s. Sometimes a quorum or more of an appointed
board of commission might attend, say, a city council meeting, or a quorum or more
of the city council might attend, say, a county board meeting. In those situations, the
public officials must be careful not to discuss among themselves any public
JJT -230080v 1
SH155-23
business. I recommend in those situations that the public officials not sit together at
the meeting.
2. A discussion bv a Quorum or more durine a break in a meetine or after a
meetine. These situations usually arise through inadvertence, and not with any
intent to violate the open meeting law. Elected and appointed public officials must,
however, be careful to avoid these situations.
3. Telephone conferences or eroup emails. A telephone conference between a
quorum or more would be treated no differently under the open meeting law than a
physical gathering of those members. There is very little case law yet on the email
issue. However, in my opinion, a "group email" would in all likelihood be treated
the same as a group telephone conference. This is not to say, however, that an
elected or appointed public official cannot discuss issues with another public official
outside of a meeting. I do recommend, however, that an elected or appointed public
official not engage in a series of conversations with different members of the same
public body. Those types of conversations could potentially be interpreted as an
open meeting law violation.
Although other potential situations exist where open meeting law issues can arise, these are
probably three of the most common ones where elected or appointed public officials need to be
careful.
I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you need any additional information.
JJT:sez
2