HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.F.1. Discussion of Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) to Put Two Parcels of Land in Shakopee in Trust -
i
I I t . I .
, �3.
� CITY OF SHAKOPEE
I � Memorandum
i
i
� TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
j Mark McNeill, City Administrator
I
i FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
! R Michael Leek, Community Development Director
�
SUBJECT: Discussion of Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC)
to Put Two Parcels of Land in Shakopee in Trust
� ME�TING DATE: January 3, 2012
i
i
1NTRODUCTION:
i
� The SMSC has made application for two parcels of Iand in Shakopee to be placed in trust.
I
(Copies of the text of the two applications accompany this report.) As a part of the
applications, the Tribe also requests that the parcels be declared to be a part of the Tribe's
reservation. The application for the former Shutrop parcel was submitted by letter dated �
June 29, 2011 and signed by Victoria A. Ranua. Tlus property (PID Na 279150010 and �
� 279150011) is appr�ximately 130 acres in size and is located in eastern Shakopee along CR
� 16. The application for the fornler Stemmer parcel was submitted by letter dated August l,
� 2011 and signed by Victoria A. Ranua. This properly is about 2.5 acres in size and is ���
i
�� located along and Dakotah Parkway. �
� �
This item is intended to give the Council an update on these applications, and seek direction I
� from the Council on items or issues to address in any scheduled meeting between City, ,
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and SMSC representatives, as well as in the City's formal '
�
�� comment on the current applications.
� i
� llISCUSSION: '
i �
' PYOCess to Date: '�
The City staff became aware of both applications when it received from the Midwest �,
Regional Office (MRO) of the BIA, copies of undated letters from the MRO to the Tribe ��
:
acknowl�dging receipt of the applications. (As Council may be aware, a tl�ird application ,
� was filed far land in the City of Prior Lake, and that application was the subject of a recent �
Prior Lake City Couneil meeting). i
Because the letters did not eomply with the process set forth in the consent decree entered �
into in 2005 by the City of Shakopee and the BIA, the City sent a series of letters to the �,
MRO attempting to get the process baek on track, and to obtain full copies of the "Shun•op" ��,
and "Steinmer" applications. Copies of these letters are provided for the Council's �'
information. �
�
�
i
i
I
i In addition to the requests to place the land in trust and reservation status, the Tribe has
� requested that the BIA find there is no need for National Environmental Protection Act
i (NEPA) environmental analysis for these acquisitions. NEPA analysis requires an analysis
j of the cuinulative impacts of all acquisitions of land into trust, rather than just an analysis of
� the most irnlnediate inlpact of an individual acquisition. This kind of analysis is key to the
i City and the Tribe having a clear undeistanding of the long term impacts on land use,
� transportation and other infrastructure. That such NEPA analysis would and should oecur
i for future acquisitions were key to the City's decision to enter into the consent decree with
� the BIA.
; An extension of the comment period to the end of January 2012 was sought and approved.
The City has also requested that a meeting occur well in advance of the deadline for
comments so the City and Tribe both have a better idea of what issues there may be. Unless
� the deadline is further extended, the City will have to submit comments by the end of
January tl�at address issues such as loss of tah base and ]and use conflicts.
Shutro Pc�reel:
�
�� The Shutrop parcel was acquired by the SMSC by deed dated, filed and recorded in October
i 2007. As noted above, the SMSC made application to have the parcel placed in trust in June
� of this year. By the applications for both the Shutrop and Stenlmer parcels, the SMSC seeks ��
'� to a) have the lasld taken in trust for the Tribe by the federal government and b) to have the
'� par•cels declared part of the Tribe's reservation pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 467. �
i
i The application states that the need to take the la�id into trust and declared part of the Tribe's ��
i �
i reservation is based on the following;
i �
�i En�ergry Diversity: In the application, it is contended that the land should be put in trust to ��
� assure that it can be used to grow pereruiial crops that will be used in the Tribe's biomass '
projects (exainple Koda Energy L.L.C.) �
� Soverei n! : In its a lications the Tribe contends that "When workin under state and '��
� Y pp � g
�� local goveriunent, the concurt•ent jurisdiction places the Tribe in a compromising position '
'� when attempting to meet its goveniment responsibilities." (Application at page 5). It is i
i intei�esting to note that as an example the application uses the upgrade of McKenna Road, �
; whieh successfully took place, although the application notes that the "...City of Shakopee ;
' council barely approved this upgrade."
i
� Land Consolidation: The application merely asserts that "A fragmented landscape of fee �
� and trust lands complicates management activities," but does not provide any details relating �i
� how this is the case. �
�
' Stemmer Parcel: �
The Stemmer parcel was acquired by the SMSC by deed dated February 2000, and filed and
i•ecorded in March 2000. As noted above, the SMSC made application to have the parcel �;
placed in trust in June of this year. By the applications for both the Shutrop and Stemmer �
parcels, the SMSC seeks to a) have the land taken in trust for the Tribe by the federal j
� H:ACC\2012\1-3-12\SMSC trust applications.docx2 �
_ ___ ______ _ _ __ ____ _.__ _____ _ ___
�
�I =ovenuiient and b to have the arcels declared art of the Tribe's reservation ursuant to 25
� ) P P p
U.S.C. Sec. 467.
The application states that the need to take the land into trust and declared part of the Tribe's
reservation is based on the following;
l i Transportation: It appears that the application intends that trust and reservation status is
needed for this parcel to serve current transportation needs, as the parcel is along a collector
street (Dakotah Parkway) serving tribal facilities, home and enterprises. Of course, those
�� transportation needs are currently being served (and have been for about 11 years) with the
land being owned in fee by the Tribe)
Sovcreignty.• The basis for this argument in the case of the Stemmer parcel is much the
same as it is in the application far the former Shutrop parcels
I . .
:�
L�cnd Consoltdutaon: The application merely asserts that A fragmented land base
complicates land use planning and the day-to-day management of Tribal resources." It does
� not provide any details relating how this is the case.
SCOTT COUNTY AND CITY OF PRIOR LAKE DISCUSSIONS REGARDING
! CURRENT TRUST APPLICATIONS:
I
i The Scott County Board of Commissioners discussed all three current applications by the
i
i SMSC to place land into trust. By individual letters to the Acting Regional Director of the
� BIA dated November 29, 2Q 11, the County Board submitted its comments on the
; applications. Specific issues raised in these letters include the following, as well as specific
� comment on the need as set forth in each of the applications.
I
i
� • That the applications do not provide enough information to determine whether the
� purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (the Act) will be furthered or
whether the standard for taking land into trust set forth in 25 C.F.R. Sec.151.10 and
151.11 has been met. The purpose of the Act, as related in the letter is ".. .to
rehabilitate the Indian's econoinic life and to give him a chance to develop the
initiative destroyed by a century of oppression and paternalism." (Citing the case of �
�, Mescal�ro Apache Coin�nunit�v. Jones. 411 U.S. 145, 152 (1973), quoting H.R. �
Rep. No. 1804, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 6(1934). �
i • That the applications are contraiy to the cutrent law of the land. Specifically, the
' County refers to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Curcieri vs. Salaza�° (No. 07- i
� 56, Argued November 3, 2008 and Decided February 24, 2009). The Carcie�i !
' decision generally holds that the federal government's authority to take land into ��,
� trust is limited to Indian tribes that were recognized and under federal jurisdiction '
when the Act was enacted in 1934. The County contends that the SMSC was not ��
recognized and under federal jurisdiction until 1969. �
� �T'l�e Prior Lake City Council discussed the application for lands within the City of Prior '�
Lake. Prior Lake City Attorney Suesan Lea Pace provided the Prior Lake Council with an ��
extensive briefing, including both the Carcieri case and Title 25, Part 151 of the Code of �
�I Federal Regulations, as well as the stated need for the trust acquisition. It is staff ,
I H:ACC\2012\1-3-12\SMSC trust applications.docx3 ��
i �
i
� ��
� �
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
�
�
I understands that by a majority, the Prior Lake City Council chose not object to the
acquisi�ion of the Prior Lake parcels into trust.
ACTION REQUESTED:
� Discuss the current applications to place t�le former Shutrop and Stemmer parcels in trust
� for the SMSC, and the issues to be raised and addressed address in any scheduled meeting
� between City, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and SMSC representatives, as well as in the
�
, City's farmal comment on the current applications.
i
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
�
I
i
I
i
�
�
i
i
i
�
�
i �
�
i
i '
I
i
I
I
�
�
H:ACC\2012\1-3-12\SMSC trust applications.docx4 I
�
i
_ _ ___ ____ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ ____ _
I, _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ __ _
�
,
I '
;
I
I , i
�
�
� ����:+� t' �t'.i;'t,• i`, ,. �:i?','.. I
i
� " �
I ' �---- I i���L.
� � I
I I `'-� i
_ __ i
-_
- �
� ! � _ 1��--� i
' �� J � � ��. i� � , �� � �� r ,,� I
��
� 7 , i
__
�
I ��� =- '_. � ,
,�.. i
` . �, o.
� � I
I_ _. _._
� I
I
i
� I
I
� SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY �
' WRITTEN REQU�ST FOR TRUST ACQUISITION OF THE ;
FORMER SHUTROP PARCEL '
i
i �
; The undersigned elected officials of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, I �,
acting under the authority delegated by the General Council, hereby submit this written '�
request to the United States Government, Secretary of the Interior, to acquire fee land �
owned by the Community to be held in trust for the Community and declare such trust '
land a art of the Shako ee Mdewakanton Sioux C u i '- �
p p omm n s� eservation.
tY
� i
�
�
Stanley R. Crooks, Chairman Glynn A. Crooks, Vice Chairman
� ;
� i
�
i
�
Keith R. Anderson, Secretary/Treasurer �
i
I
I
i
I
�
I- . . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .
I __.-_-...._-_-..... . _.-.. .._.__.__ . _.___.-.. _ -_"_.__ . ._. . ._. .. - ..._. _.
i
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
�
�,
; i
1. INTENT OF APPLICATION ..................................................................................1 ;
i
;
l.l. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 I
I ' 1.2. REQuEST FoR Txr�sT AcqulsiTloN ...................................................................... 1 �
i,
1.3. REQUEST FOR RESERVATION STATUS .................................................................. 1 �
I
; 2. DESCRIPTION OF LAND ......................................................................................1
I ' 2.1. LocAT1oN ............................................................................................................1 I
'
3. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE ACQUISITION ................................e.. 2 �
i
� 3.1. STATUTORY AUTHORITY ...............................•••-••...._......................_.............••••••• 2 �
�' 3.2. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ............................................................................. 3
I ' 4. NEED OF THE TRISE FOR THE ADDITIONAL LAND .................................. 4 I '
�
I �
� 4.1. ENERGY DIVERSITY ,,, 5 �
...................................................................................
j 4.2. SOVEREIGNTY ...................................................................................................... S
� 4.3. LAND CONSOLIDATION ........................................................................................ 6 ,
i I
�
� 5. PURPOS� FOR WHICH THE LAND WILL BE USED .................. 6
...................
�
� S.l. ENERGY DIVERSITY .............................................................................................. 6
I 5.2. SOVEREIGNTY ...................................................................................................... C �
� 5.3. LAND CONSOLIDATION ........................................................................................ 7
; 6. IMPACT ON THE STATE AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
� RESULTING FROM THE REMOVAL OF THE LAND FROM TH� TAX ROLLS �
� � �
; I �
6.1.1. Table 1, Parcel Pro�erty Tax and i�here It Goes ....................................... 7
�
6.1.2. Table 2, Pe�cent of Parcel Propef°ty Tczxes on County and City Revenue .. 8 I
61.3. Table 3, IntergoveNnJnental Aid .................................................................. 9
� 6.1.4. �'able 4, T�ibal contributions to Scott County econo�a�y ............................. 9 ��
7. JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF LAND i
USE9 �
8. ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES THAT MAY ACCRUE TO THE I �
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS .................................................................................10 i
, 9. INFORMATION REGARDING 516 DM 6, APPENDIX 4, NATIONAL �
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND 642 DM 2, LAND ACQUISITIONS: '�
; HAZARDOUS SUSSTANCES DETERMINATIONS ................................................10 ;
, 9.1. PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT .............................................. 1 O �
I 9.�. ENDANG ED SPECI S A T AL SURVEY .............................................................. 10 �
9.4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 11 I
�
' i
1 i
i
I
i 10. APPENDI� A, F�DERAL REGISTER LISTING FOR SHAKOPEE
i MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY ..................................................................1
I 11. APPENDIX B, GENERAL COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANC�
1
�� 12. APPENDIX C, REAL ESTATE DOCUMENTS (DEED, TITLE, ALTA
'�, SURVEY) ...........................................................................................................................1 �
�
' 13. APPENDIX D, �NVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS.......... 2 �
�
14 PLATES ................................................................................................................. 3
�' 14.1 PLATE 1, VICINITY MAP 3 �
� . .......................................................................................
! 14.2. PLATE 2, PARCEL DETAIL MAP ............................................................................. 3 i
� 14.3. pLATE 3, LAND USE MAPS .................................................................................... 3 i
; �
I ,
I
i
� I
I �
,
'
I I
i
;
� � �
i l
j I
�
I
I
i
' I
�
�
�
�
I ;
�
I
;
,
11
� _ . __ _ _ _ _ _
I �
1
1. INTENT OF APPLICATION ���,
! LL Introduction !
i �
� This docuinent constitutes a foi written request by the �hakopee '
, ��
Mdewakanton Sioux Community (hereinafter "the Tribe") for the United States to ;
� acquire the former Shut�op parcel of approximately 130 acres in trust for the Tribe and �
� declare that land to be a part of the Tribe's reservation. The land lies within the historic �i
residence area of the SAK PE band of the Mdewakanton Dakota. The Tribe is a federally
I recognized Indian Tribe organized under Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act '
i
�' (IRA) (Appendix A). �
' �,
� L2. Request for Trust Acquisition '
I The Business Council of the Tribe, acting under the authority delegated by the
i
I General Council (Appendix S), hereby requests the Secretary of the Interior to acquire '
�
the Shutrop parcel in Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, (hereinafter the "Subject �,
� Parcei") in trust for the Tribe. ;
i i
; The Subject Parcel is adjacent to existing trust and reservation lands (Appendix C, ��
Plate 1 and 2). The parcel South of the Subject Parcel is trust and reservation land. The
i
i parcels to the West are Tribal trust and fee land. The Tribe's written request is an on- �
I reservation acquisition under 25 CFR § 151.10. I
�
� 1.3. Request for Reservation Status ��
i
� The Business Council of The Tribe, acting under the authority delegated by the i
General Council (Appendix B), hereby requests the Secretary of the Interior to declare �
� �
i the Subject Parcel a part of the Tribe's reservation pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 467. ;
�
2. DESCRIPTION OF LAND '
' i
i 2.1. Location
� This 130 acres of land is described by the United States Govermnent Survey as
the West '/2 of the Southeast 1 /4 and Government Lot 3, all in Section 15 Tov�nishi 115N I �
� p �
i
� Range 22W. This parcel is cunei�tly located within the city boundaries established by the
City of Shakopee (hereinafter "the City"), Scott County (hereinafter "the County"), and ;
� the State of Minnesota (Plate 1). This parcel is surrounded by and contiguous to existing �
;� trust land on the South (Plate 2). Tribal trust and fee land is also located to the West.
I
, i Required under 25 C.F.R. � 1519 �
i
� 1 i
�
r
�
._.._.. . _. _ _ __. . . _.. .. ..__ _ _. __ _.. __. _ . _..._ . _ _ . .._..... ___ _..
. __.... ._... . _.. _. . _... _ ...__. __.._._ . _ . ---- i
I I
, I
I
� The �ubject Parcel plays an important role in the Tribal communiry and its i
I
i energy economy. The land is primarily agriculture �eld, with wetland fringe around i
i
Dean's Lake and a woodland bluff. Up until Euro-American settleinent of the area in t11e '
�
�
1850s, the Subject Parcel was tall-grass prairie. In Fall 2008, Tribal staff planted these ��
� fields back into native prairie for use as a biomass source in Koda Energy, LLC (a �
; cooperative enteiprise owned by the Tribe and Rahr Malting Coinpany). Koda Energy '
i
provides heat and electricity for the adjacent malting plant and excess energy is sold i
i back to the local power companies. This project provides the Tribe with access to a local i
�
�
sustainable and culturally relevant energy source. '�
i An important Tribal roadway, McKe�uia, is adjacent to the Subject Parcel. This I �
�
partial-tribally funded road provides access to two major county roads (CSAH 16 and ;
� CSAH 42), the McKenna Road water treatment plant, and Tribal inember residential �
i i
areas. In 2000, the Tribe funded to pave this gravel road and in 2008, the Tribe designed i
i and funded an overlay on McKenna Road. The City of Shakopee currently performs �
i roadway maintenance on McKenna Road. I �
i �
i 3. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE ACQUISITION '
i 3.1. Statutory Authority '
i
The Supreme Court recently confinned that the fee to trust process "provides the '
i
I� proper avenue" for an Indian Tribe "to reestablish sovereign authority over territory." i
i City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 125 S.Ct. 1478, 1494 (2005). Section 5 of the �
� IRA provides clear statutory authority for acquisitions of land in hust for Indian Ti°ibes. ��
, i
"Acquisition of land in trust for Indian Tribes and individuals is authorized by the Indian ;
; Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 465." Geor�iana Kautz v. Portland Area Director BIA, I �
i 19 IBIA 305, 308 (1991). Under the IRA, Indian Tribes can purchase land and request ;
', the Secretary of the Interior to place the land in trust pursuant to §465. Chase v. ��
i �
� McMasters, 573 F.2d 101 l, 1015-16 (8 Cir. 1978); City of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. v. ;
; Andrus, 532 F. Supp. 157, 162 (D.D.C. 1980). Section 5 of the IRA, 25 U.S.0 § 465, I �
� provides the statutory authority for this acquisition. ;
� �
�� Regulations iinplementing § 465 are found at 25 C.F.R. Part 151. McAl�ine v. i
� �
United States, 112 F.3d 1429, �431 (lO Cir. 1997). While 25 U.S.C. § 465 vests the �
i
� ' 25 C.F.R. § 15l .10 (a) '
i
2 ,
i
i
I _ _ __.___ _ _ _ _-- __ . � _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ .___ _ _ .__
i
i Secretary with discretion to make trust acquisition determinations, that discretion is
� guided by the implementing regulations and requires the Secretary's "final decision '
i i
should be reasonable in view of its overall analysis of the factors listed in section �
� 151.10." Ross v. Acting Muskogee Area Director, BIA, 18 IBIA 31, 34 (1989); �'
� i
i McAlpine v. Muslcogee Area Director, BIA, 19 IBIA 2, 6(1990). i
i i
This request is within the scope of the regulations governing trust acquisitions hy
� the United States, and fulfills the policy as articulated at 25 C.F.R. § 151.3(a)(1)-(3). '
� First, statutory authorization for the acquisition is found at 25 U.S.C. § 465, et seq., thus �
�
satisfying the requirement of 25 C.F.R. § 151.3. Second, in accordance with 25 C.F.R. §
� 151.3(a) (1), the Tribe owns this parcel in fee simple absolute. Third, as set forth in 25 �
i
GF.R. § 151.3(a)(2), this parcel is adjacent and contiguous to the Tribe's reservation. �
�! �
� Fou1 the Tribe's request is necessary to facilitate self-deteznlination and economic �
i
i
development. i
� Trust acquisition of the Subject Parcel is within the intended scope of § 465 of the ��
� IRA The continued use benefits not only the Tribe, but also the entire region. The
' Tribe, local water resources, and local wildlife directly benefits from the existing land use
i I
� as a native energy crop and an indirect benefit to all people living in the region. The �
�� existing transportation route was upgraded using Tribal funds and provides an alteinative �
I route for all persons traversing the area. The land's fee status needlessly complicates '�
�
� land management (i.e. having to seek City of Shakopee approval for SMSC fiinding / �
I �, perfoinling an upgrade of roadways important to tribal activity, McKenna Road). With �
�
the land in fee ownership the land is subject to a complex interaction of local, state, '
� �
' Tribal and federal regulations. ,
� I
3.2. Constiitutional Authority �
� Congress possesses the Constitutional authority to acquire land in hust and has i
' properly delegated the authority to the Secretary of the Interior in Section 5 of the IRA. �
I � Article l, Section 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power i
I � �
� 3 The intent of the IRA's t��ust acquisition statute, as stated by the Representative Edgar Howard, the bill's ��
� House sponsor, was to provide "a land acguisition pro�ram to provide land for Indians... who can use the '
� land beneficially." 78 Cong. Rec. H11, 730 (1934). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals likewise �
' deteimined that the le;islative history indicates an intent to develop Tribal economics, "to conserve and i
; develop Indian lands and resources," and prevent any further loss of Indian lands. South Dakota v. Dept. of i
; the Interior, 423 F3d at 798. I
i
I
3 �
�
_ _ _ _ _ __
_--_ — -- - —_ _ _____ _ _ __ _ _ . _ __ _
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _--- _
I
I
� to reQulate all commerce with I�idian tribes. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 rants
� > > g
� Congress the power to pass all laws necessary and proper to regulate such commerce. �
� Using tlus authority, Congress enacted the IRA. Section 465 of the IRA delegates �'
� !
authority to the Secretary of the Interio� to acquire land in trust for Federally Recognized i
Indian Tribes. ;
; �
! The constitutionality of the IRA, specifically 25 U.S.C. §465, suivived judicial �'�
i
� scrtrtiny on several occasions. Seetian 465 was challenged as unconstitutional by the j
; State of South Dakota, and a panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a two to one i
i
decision, ei�roneously held the statute to be an unconstitutional delegation of authority by !
! Con ress. State of South Dakota v. U.S. De 't of the In�erior 69 F.3d 878 `�' Cir
g - - P � (� • �
1995). The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the �
i �
I judgment and remanded the case. 519 U.S. 919 (1996). �
,
Since the Supreme Court's decision in 1996, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals �
i
also disagreed with the vacated decision of the Eighth Circuit and held that "Congress �'�
�; properly delegated to the Secretary of the Interior authority to malce (hust ac uisitions". !
) q �
� United States v. Roberts, 185 F3d 1125, 1137 (10`��' Cir. 1999}. Both the District of ��
Columbia and First Circuit Court of Appeals have also held that the IRA's delegation of i
authority to the 5ecretary to acquire lands in trust is constitutional. Carcieri v. Noi �
i
398 F.3d 22 (lst Cir. 2005); Michi�an Gaming Opposition v. Kem thorne; 525 F. 3d 23, i
33 (D.C. Cir 2008). Furthermore, in 2005, the Eighth Circuit repudiated its 1995 �
', decision and upheld the constitutionality of 25 U.S.C. §465. South Dakota v. U.S. Dep't
of the Interior, 423 F.3d 790 ($ Cir. 2005}. Accordingly, the statutory authority is I �
;� constitutional and, as a rnatter of federal law, the Secretar can ac uire lands in trust for !
Y q �
��� the Tribe pursuant to § 465. ;
, �
�
�
4. NEED OF THE TRISE FOR TH� ADDITIONAL LAND '
� The existing land use on the Subject Parcel ineets critical Tribal needs and will i
fulfill the following needs of the Tribe: ��
i �'
' • Energy diversity �
�; I
4
� Requlred under 25 C.F.R. § 151.10 (b) i
�
4 i
i
I
• Sovereignty '
;
' • Land Consolidation '
� �
4.1. Energy Diversity '
I � An uncertain and steady rise in cost of conventional cncrgy so�u�ces over the last �
� decade prompted the Trit�e to consider other sources of energy. The tribe has invested j
� time and money into an anemometer, a wind generator, Koda Energy LLC, and a 380 I �
acre native biomass energy project. These Tribal initiatives support a diverse energy �,
'� portfolio and support Tribal sovereignty by reducing dependence on outside sources of ;
l i �
energy. One-Hundred and Three (103) acres of the Subject Parcel are part of the 380 '
acre native biomass energy project. The Tribe selected the Subject Parcel and two other ��
�� �
� sites in the unmediate vicinity because the agriculture fields were primarily inarginal crop
�i land, were tall-grass prairie prior to Euro-American settlement, and not planned for future ��
development by the Tribe. No other Tribal lands meet this criteria. This energy resource
i
�
! is site specific and related to the location of the land. The fact that tlus perennial crop j
i
takes five ar more years to establish prahibits simply moving this land use to another
:
loeation.
�
�
� 4.2. Sovereignty '
i
The Tribe cannot fulfill its responsibilities as a sovereign govei unless it has ;
�� jurisdiction over the land and resources required to meet these responsibilities. The
�
' Tribe's responsibility in this case is energy diversity. The Tribe provides this service at ��
i
its own expense and at no cost to the adjacent jurisdictions. The governmenta] systems �
and infrastructure should be under the Tribe's jurisdiction, which is the government I ',
� providing the services. �
i �
`
When working under the state and local government, the concurrent jurisdiction �i
places the Tribe in a compromising position when attempting to ineet its goverrunent ,'
�� responsibilities Even in the absence of conflict, concun•ent 'urisdiction dilutes Tribal �
J
� law as the Tribe seeks to meet its own need. Concut�ent jurisdiction results in additional �
� �
� �
' For example in 2008, the Tribe wanted to overlay McKenna Road to benefit Tribal residences,
infrastructure, and resources at rts own expense. Since McKenna Road is not a Tribal roadwa this desire I
Y� �
required approvai of the City of Slaakopee. After much debate, the City of Shakopee council barely
approved this upgrade.
5 I �
%
�
ex ense b du licatinQ efforts and the local v '
p y p b o ermnents resources would not be
g
i implicated by trust status.
� 4.3. Land Consolidation
A fragmented landscape of fee and trust lands complicates rnanagement activities. ,
�� 5. PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LAND WILL BE USED� ��
j Under trust, this land will continue to be a prairie. I
I
5.1. Energy diversity �'
�
Growing prairie grasses for biomass energy feedstock is one of the Tribe's �
'�� options in developing a diverse energy portfolia Tlus form of agricultl�re is suited to the �
Subject Parcel given its historie land cover (tallgrass prairie), its location (near Koda I
Ener a
gy), nd no plans by the Tribe for any developrnent (Plate 3). The tribe will manage
the Subject Parcel to produce suitable feedstock for Koda Energy. In addition to
j rovidin a local culturall -relevant ener source the Tribe also ho es this ro'ect will ���
� p g Y gY � P P 1 �
� demonstrate to other tribes and communities residing on foimer prairie land the
�,
suitability of using diverse native prairie as a low-input energy source. I i
5.2. Sovereignty ''
�
Several Tribal plans, commission, and departments would directly be supported ,'
by the Tribe's exercise of sovereignty on the Subject Parcel. The Tribe has tlie I
regulations, staffing, equipment and resources necessary to ineet its governmental �
obligations to Tribal members and ove�all public safety. For example, the Tribe provides
� the following regulations, programs, and resources:
'
�
' • Land and Natural Resources Department. This department is '�
; �
� responsible for the management of �he biomass prairie. ��
�
• Mdewakanton Fire and Emergency Services. The Tribal fire I �
� . �
department services trust land. The department has mutual-aid agreements �
� with several local fire departments to provide seivice upon request.
� ��
• Publie Works provides various public services including street cleaning, ;
� snow plowing, and debris removal. l i
i
� Required under 25 C.F.R. § 151.10 (c)
6 �
_____ _ _ _____ _ _ _
,
i I _- ___ _ . _ __ _ ____ _. �
__ _ _ - - -- _ _ __ _.- - _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ i
� i
'� �
� A variety of groups utilize Tribal resources, including Tribal members, its staff and �
I
i
employees, the Scott County Arnerican Indian population, and Tribal guests. The i
' benefits to the public fi�om Tribal jurisdiction over the Subject Parcel includes local
� �
�' energy production and legal clarity. �
; �
5.3. Land Consolidation '
1 Placing the Subject Parcel in trust reduces checkerboard jui and I
'�� consolidates tl�e Tribe's t��ust land base. ��,
i
I �,
'�
6. IMPACT ON THE STATE AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS �
' RESULTING FROM THE REMOVAL OF THE LAND FROM THE TAX j
� ROLLS� '
I
Property taxes paid on the Subject Parcel are an insignificant percentage of the
�
overall Scott Count and Cit of Shako ee bud et. Removal of the land from the tax �;
I � Y Y p g
� rolls will result in a loss of approximately $49,723 per year in propei taxes paid to the ���
� �
� political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota (Table 1 aiid 2). This is the full extent of �
� the impact on the state and local government tax receipts. �
�
b.l.l. Table 1, Parcel Propertv Tax and Where h Goes ;
�
' Year Parcel Tax County City State Other � !
� ,
! 2010 $49,723 $16,107 $16,355 $0 $17,275
I
2009 $31,382 $10,377 $10,361 $0 $10,638 ;
; 2008 $5,090 $1,665 $1,626 $0 $1,790 ;
2007 �4,414 $1,443 $1,38$ $0 $1,575 �,
2006 $3,940 $1,310 $1,191 $0 $1,432 �,
� �
2005 $3,568 $1,2�8 $1,090 $0 $1,232 �
2004 $3,030 $1,082 $959 $0 $982 '
� 2003 $2,660 $932 $820 $0 $900 i
Data Source: Scott County Property Tax Statements (P1D 279150010 and 2791 SOOI 1). i
* Includes school district levies, special taxing districts, and non-school levies. �
I �
�
i
� ,
I
7 Re uired under 25 C.F.R. I51.10 e
q § �) i
i
I
7 I
—
i -
�
i ___ ___ -- --
i
i
I
; 6.1.2. Table 2, Percent of Parcel Pro�erty Taxes on County and City Revenue
i �ear Parcel Tax County Revenue °/a of Revenue City Revenue % of Revenue '�
i
i 2008 �5,090 $109,172,184 0.0047 $24,923,096 0.0204 ;
2007 $4,414 $105,512,634 0.0042 $24,218,b67 0.0182 ;
' 2006 $3,940 $102,084,157 0.0039 $22,813,683 0.0173 �
i '
2005 $3,568 $84,123,212 0.0042 $24,214,573 0.0147 �
2004 $3,030 $79,667,334 0.0040 $23,156,311 0.0131 �
�
I � 2003 �2,660 $74,853,923 0.0036 $20,930,535 0.0127 �
i Data Source: State of Minnesota Auditors Office, 2008. The most recent County and City Revenues '�
' available are 2008. ;
� �
� Evaluating the current level of tax payment is the proper measure tax iinpact '
I � Most services�, road upgt•ades, prairie biomass management and other maintenance costs
�
i �
� are being borne by the Tribe. Therefore, there is no increase in costs to the state or any of ��
its political subdivisions. The total iinpact is limit�d to approximately $49,723 per year. ;
' ��
; Even in the absence of propei�ty taxes paid on trust land, Tribal enterprises ,
i
i provide both direct and indirect benefits to Scott County and the City of Shakopee. The i
� Tribe duectly contributes money to both Scott County and the City of Shakopee for the ��
various projects (Table 2). The Tribe also contributes to the local economy by providing �
� i
� employment and income to Scott County residents and utilizing Scott County-based ,
vendors (Table 3). �
� ��
�� �
� �
� �
� I
' I
' �
' I
', �
�
� '
� �
i 8 State of South Dakota v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 423 F.3d 790 (8�' Cir. 2005). The Eighth Circuit �
� Court of Appeals recently upheld a determination that an annual tax loss of $2.587.02 is not significant. Id. ��
at 801-02. �
g Under Minnesota Public Law 280, the State possesses criminal jurisdiction over Tribal Reservation and ;
trust lands. The Tribe contracts police service on trust lands. �
i ,
I ,
i 8 ;
� '�
--
�
�
i
' 6. 1.3. Table 3, Inter�ovenunental Aid
Item Contribution Item Contribution
i Blue Lake Sewer Access $ 482,550 Scott County CR 83 Upgrade $ 4,000,000
i I
Blue Lake Wastewater Treat�nent $ 2,941,692 Scott County CR 83 Overlay $ 249,500 i
� Priar Lake Skate Park $ 25,000 Scott County CR 42 Upgrade $ 300,000 i
i �
i i
� Prior Lake Ryan Park $ 450,000 Scott County CR 83 / 21 $ 443,805 '
I Prior Lake Fire Dept Donation $ 49,668 Scott County Agreement � 1,512 i
� I �
� Prior Lake Police and Fu•e $ 2,960,942 Scott County CR 42 / 83 $ 2,525,546 �
� Scott County Transit $ 5,000 Shakopee SCALE Training Facility $ 4,000 ;
i
Scott County Sirens $ 60,000 Shakopee Parks $ 70,233 a
i i
� Scott County CR 82 Upgrade $ 2,000,000 Shakopee McKenna Road $ 242,095 �
` ��
Total $ 18,322,531 ,'
I � �
i * Data Source: Tribal accountuig. i
I l i
� 6.1.4. Table 4, Tribal contributions to Scott County economy ;
�
; 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ;
� i
Vendor payments 'v� Scott $5.3 $$.0 $82 $ 9.4 $9.4 $123 $17.7 $153 $9.5 �
' Count
Y �
�� Payroll paid to Scott County $Sl .0 $51.0 $53.8 $54.1 $51.7 $�6.9 $62.5 $70.6 NA '
i
residents i
�' * Data source: Tribal accounting and payroll. Data includes payments and payroll from all Triba] �
; enterprises and govemment activities. Numbers are rounded. ;
�
i 7. JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF LAND I �
USE '�
; A trust acquisition of the Subject Parcel does not create conflicts with ad'acent �
J
land uses, existing or plamled. The lands directly to south and west are Tribal fee and ',
� �
io Required under 25 C.F.R. § 15110 (fl �
i �
i �
9
� �
�
i
i _ _ _ _ __. _ I
�I �
; trust lands under the land use planning autharity of the Tribe. These land uses are �
biomass prairie and residential. Adjacent non-tribal lands located to the northwest is low- �
� . . .
, densit residential and a riculture to the east. In the future The Cit lans sin le-famil !
I Y g � YP g Y
i
residences for agriculture lasid (Plate 4). �,
�
�
8. ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES THAT MAY ACCRUE TO THE
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS� ',
A dit'
�� d ional responsibilities that i�iay accrue to the BIA are minimal. There will be i
; �
i a miniscule increase in the BIA road inventory mileage from the addition of a portion of ,
i � CSAH 16. The Tribe nlay request BIA assistance for certain activities canied out as part I �
�
�
of tlle BIA trust responsibility, which involves land and environmental issues. SuCh i
I � �
i requests will constitute an insignificant increase in the BIA's responsibilities because the '
' proposed trust acquisition will result in a slight increase to the Tribe's reservation and �
i trust land base. Therefore, the additional responsibility that may accrue to the BIA is ��
�
, �
nominal. '
9. INFORMATION REGARDING 516 DM 6, APPENDIX 4, NATIONAL 'i
��i ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND 602 DM 2, LAND ACQUISITIONS: '
! HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DETERMINATIONS12 '
� i
9.1. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment !
� �
! EMR, Inc. completed a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment of the Subject
' I
Parcel and found no recognized environmental conditions (Appendix D). This survey will
� �
i require updating either by a contractor paid by the Community and reporting to the BIA i
or by BIA staff. I
�� 9.2. Phase One Archeological Survey �
! Balton and Menk, Ine. completed a Phase One Archeological Reconnaissance of �I
'
�
the Subject Parcel (Appendix D) and recommended a finding of "No Historic Properties �
; Affected". The Tribal Historical Preservation Officer, Leonard Wabasha, agrees with the �!
' finding (Appendix D). I
�
� 9.3. Endangered Species Act �,
The Tribe's enviromnental staffhas visited the Subject Parcel on numerous I
�
i occasions while conducting faunal and floral suzveys. They observed no threatened or �
� �
" Required under 25 C.F.R. � 15110 (g) �I
�' Required under 25 C.F.R. § 151.10 (h) �
10 �i
I
i
� --------- ----- -- ---__- _ __ _ _ .-- - __ _ ___- -___ __------- -- --
_ --_ __ _.
endangered species. This is consistent with its location in an agriculature/urban
�
; landsca e. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife does not list and s ecies occurrin in the Count �
P p g Y
i �
(Appendix D). �
i
9.4. Environmental Assessment
� The Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, categorically excludes land �;
I
j conveyance requests where there is no cl�ange in land use frorzi further environmental i
' review (Appendix D). By design, the diverse biomass prairie has none of the negative i
i
; environn�ental impacts of other potential land uses (conventional agriculture or
, �
residential). i
,
�
i
I � �
i
�
�
; �
�I
� �
� !
'�
�
'
�� l i
�
, ��
� ,
i
� �
,
i
� i
� i
i i
' I
I
I
�
� I
� �i
�, i
�
i i
�
11 '
i �
�— - '
_ _____ _ ___ __. __ __ _ __ __ _.__ _ _
__ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _
! �
I I
� 1
I
:�:���_� _ =;;P ��€}s s �z+r-� t�� �. _ �
�
ri�ii�e 4—Parce! i,'L'! :mv�.y I I
..scr�rno . .,��, �.,...,, .N.a.. . , , . � ,a> umn n, o � nnrn . . ., � � . „ , .. , � � �. � �„ o.,. "-' ^ �
plES C E 0 D i0 SCNEOUL V E%C IIOI S . . s<< l a� xr ursl ��� I fj '.
... .. , .�vu �'( a). ��. � � ��.�i� Y 1 �
i � � I . . , .. . . ' __'. �r � �i�'�.'o . ��t ` i I
.,,.�..,�„ .,, . ,,..oa..<<,..,..� �.o.o,.,.,a<.,., , . , . .. .. ; ,, 5� � ' I
. .�.�.�,�....� ,.......,�......._.�.u,.. .o.,.,�.,,.. .,� .,...,����,,....n,.,..�.,,.,..,.�,..a�. ,,.�,..,.��.,,...,..,.W.,, ,i —J .
��, u.�,.�.w�.�,..,M:«,..,..r,,.o>.,..,,�.��,.n..,.,�..,�. ,• - .�od.s,i LOCATIOFI MFP !
POSSEIE El:�Ct0.4[H!�DlIS £UfNCfq15 t'01ES e•'ii1l as�f �v.0 o 5: � I
p� �. q , ..�... ,.,. ,,. . _ ,. � ..,.�.,�.h..,. �rc ..,�,...�,�..�.,...,. ,..., „� h , ,.,., ,.,. �,� ., „ . o �,<<., a....,�, .. C 4 � � ��^ .
O i . ., . . . . . � .i , o ,. n � ,. �.. UMfYO�S C[f�lIFCAT011 r/ � -� � - - �I
� �, . . . . , . . .. . :�. c��hr�ir
(dr .,. .�.. .�ne,,.., ��, e � .c..��„a��,..�,..,... b ��`� �� �I
� �.. � � '. l�:(,'\"�' i q� ..�
�. � < ...�., o.._ ��� ���� \ I
��U.b���,.,,. , �.., „�.,.., ..�„ ,�. ,�..,. � n\ ry � i
o.,' oFrni� ��� I i
...��,.,.,,�.,, ..,r.,.., �. ., ,,n, ,� e� ?�' �.- — � i
q, i
'�. � � � 1 / rn �'. n °' �
. � i ,� : ;� , . . s�l .�,....,.�.,, . - . .. ., � -.�i� . �
� � � o � o ',/ _ - 9 �� �o
f ---_..._.��—a� ,.,... "_` � ,.,,,..,,,, ,....�,.,., �,.�... <=i'�O _— „ _
� � .� � ' `� � ° . ' � , �;� 3� � � �
� r �� �./�� � - �, t e '� '
I � �> � , -' .�
V Re r,,`'' / ��':'� o S ) i � N, n ,;� , �'� � 5 ' w
� �� � : s�: o>r.0 ��� \�J'{/1! �� .� r i��� y F� � � i� u
I � � t�"�` n � < � �?
� �� �� \ �O F �, °- I : �'% , g 1
I r � „ � o mE J as. .. . . .. .. . . , .. � wY a L'_T'_ �l ..,,<nA��
G P � 1 cd �� �/` � i� z ��,' 3
i � O ��/ �� :* /� 4 _�y � .
t� l ) iv�% �� _ i.r-�
I � ��� `.�� l�1 �, ��{ � �!�� .. � .�., � o:.,r.�., .�i �
! I �� �, ry. �,/ , �� `�a � ;o.•,�`��;�a r - 1 - -_ - _ — ' -_-_� ' "
,r� i, i r . ���„<, ;, .' „ � / 7 � -� ---r-' -_�____ � � —f '�-_- �„ - •r Y _ , ' � '� � �°����'
n,�
. ,..
— ---� „
�, � `-_ G �— rl .�i�... - - - ��ar�,���r'' ,�a -- --- �e�..�, .., - - ---- - - ' '. �—^
� , ,,,� , MC<F�IhA ROAD „ r�
� �� , ,
� �tin�,�� � �» ,� t 5�� -,_..._
I y �' �, cc�.� ..�...a fr ��i .� . ,., pl� BC7LTON L M�NK5IIJIC . am�. n�.ur� �
� YI
.... ,.,. . _._. ___.,---_. _ _.__.__ _ _ _ __ - -- --- -
:.,<,: -
. ... . ,, _ _.
----- �
Prepared Uy: 6ol[on & h9enk, Inc. ARCHAfOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY
C12.100482 p.PPED!DIX C: 2009 - SHUTROP r21 - Page II
I �
I
_ _ __ __ ____ __ _ _ _ __ _ _
_ _ __
I _ — _ ___ _ __ _ _-- - — --__ _ _
_ _ _ - - --- _ _
i�
I
j ,
i
� I !
i
i �
i � ` . _ .._
���i.� C i , �r �� � �� �
� �
sMS� �. «��- �
° �--- _
� i
( i
i i �
- -, �
� , . IJ ,
I I � � � -: . .. �
-
' � � � '� - - �
� � ����� _ � �� �
� Q I
i -
, �� � ,
;;, � _ _ _ _ _ ,i
i
i
I
il �
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
�� WRITTEN REQUEST FOR TRUST ACQUISITION OF THE ���
FORMER STEMMER PARCEL (2.5 ACRES).
�
�
The undersigned elected officials of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, '
, acting under the authority delegated by the General Council, hereby submit this written
re uest to the United States Government Secretai of the Interior to ac uire fee land �
� 9 � y � q �
� owned by the Community to be held in trust for the Community and declaz such trust '�
land a part of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Conununity's reservation. �
' �
i ;
Stanley R. Crooks, Chairman Glyniz A. Crooks, Vice Chairman !
�
' �
i
i
Keith R. Anderson, Secretary/Treasurer �,
i
, �,
I
i
�
I
�� . ___'.___"_- .�__ .___ _'___. ._.. __._ ..."-_"__' "__'_-.. ..-_-'__ --'--___ __ ____... _.__"-_-.. .'"- __"_.-_.__._ __. .
I
I
I
I
� TABLE OF CONTENTS
�
' 1. INTENT OF APPLICATION ..................................................................................1
i
� 1.1. INTRODUCT1oN ................................................................................ 1
....................
i 1.2. REQUEST FOR TRUST ACQUISITION ...................................................................... 1
i 1.3. REQUEST POR RESERVATION STATUS ................................. ��
................................. 1 i
�
i 2. DESCRIPTION OF LAND ......................................................................................1 �
�
2 .1. LOCATION ............................................................................................................ 1 ,
i ,
i 3. STATUTORY AUTHORITY 1+'U12 THE ACQUISITION ................................... 2 ,
j 3.1. STATUTORY AUTHORITY •••.....••••--••--••--.....---•--•---• ............................................... 2 i
�
i 3.2. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ............................................................................. 3
' 4. NEED OF THE TRIBE FOR THE ADDITIONAL LAND .................................. 4 I
� 4.1. TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................ 4 l i
�
; �.2. SOVEREIGNTY
...................................................................................................... 5 �
4.3. LAND CONSOLIDATION ......................................................................................... 5 ;
' S. PURPOSE FOR WffiCH THE LAND WILL B� USED 5 I '
� � .....................................
i I
� S.l. TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................ S '
i �
S.Z. SOVEREIGNTY ................................................................. C
.....................................
5.3. LAND CQNSOLIDATION ........................................................................................ ( '
' i
� 6. IMPACT ON THE STATE AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS !
� RESULTING FROM THE REMOVAL OF THE LAND FROM THE TAX ROLLS �
6 I
� E .1. T
ABLE 1, PARCEL PROPERTY TAX AND WHERE IT GOES ..................................... 7 !
�� 6.2. TABLE 2, PERCENT OF PARCEL PROPERTY TAXES ON COUNTY AND CITY i
,
�, REVENUE ......................................................................................................................... 7
i 6.3. TABLE 3, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AID .................................................................. 8
6.4. TABLE 4. TRIBAL CONTRIBUTTONS TO SCOTT COUNTY ECONOMY (IN MILLIONS� 9 �
�
� 7. JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF LAND
i USE9 I �
I 7.1. TABLE S. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS ................................................. 1 O �
' 8. ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES THAT MAY ACCRUE TO THE �I
' BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS '
.................................................................................13 �
�; 9. INFORMATION REGARDING 516 DM 6, APPENDIX 4, NATIONAL ',
� ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND 602 DM 2, LAND ACQUISITIONS: �
HAZARDOUS SUSSTANC�S DETERMINATIONS ................................................14 '
� �
, 9.1. PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT .............................................. 14 ,
9.2. PHASE ONE ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY .............................................................. 14 '
^ i
9.�. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ............................................................................... 14
�
�
1 ,�
�
�
i
-- ----_ - - -- -- - - - - - --- --- - - - --- -- ---- ---- ---- - -
i
' 9.4. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT .........................................................................14
� 9.5. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM ............................................... 14 �
�� 10. APPENDIX A, FEDERAL REGISTER LISTING FOR SHAKOPEE '
MD�WAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY ..................................................................1 '
i
� ll. APPENDIX S, GENERAL COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCE �
� �
i 1 ;
; 12. APPENDIX C, REAL ESTAT� DOCUMENTS (DEED, TITLE I
� COMMITMENT, ALTA SURVEI� ...............................................................................1 I
� 13. APPENDIX D, ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS.......... 2 ;
i
� 14. PLATES ................................................................................................................. 3
� ��
, 14.1. PLATE l, VICINITY MAP ...........................................................•--•--••--.._.......•••••... 4 �
14.2. PLATE 2, PARCEL DETAIL MAP ............................................................................ 4 i
14.3. PLATE 3, LAND USF, MAPS
.............. . .................................................................. 4 �
� �
�
, �
� �
�
� �
i �
i i
�
; �
, I �
' �
�
; �
� i
� i
I �
�; ��
; �
� !
� I ��
�
�
�
11 �
II�
i
�
-- -------- - -- ---_ -- —__ __ _ __ -- - --__---- -- - —_-__ _ _ -- --- - _-
i 1. INTENT OF APPLICATION
� L1. Introduction
I This document constitutes a formal written request by the Shakopee
Mdewakanton Sioux Communit hereinafter "the Tribe" or the nited t �
) f U Sta es to
Y� ,
� acquire approxunately 2.5 acres of land in trust for the Tribe and declare that land to be a �i
I
� part of the Tribe's reservation. The land lies within t11e historic residence area of the
SAK PE band of the Mdewakanton Dakota. The Tribe is a federally recognized Indian i
�, �
� Tribe organized under Section 16 of the Indian Reorgaruzation Act (IRA) (Appendix A). ',
,
1.2. Request for Trust Acquisitiion �
; The Business Council of the Tribe, acting under the delegated authority of the I
General Council (Appendix B), hereby requests the Secretary of the Interior to acqliire I �
�i �
i 2.5 acres in Scott County, Minnesota, (liereinafter the "Subject Parcel") in trust for the i
Tribe. i
i
The Sub�ect Parcel is ad acent and contiQuous to existin trltst and reseivation �
i J J b g ,
lands (Plate 1 and 2). The parcels north and east of the Subject Parcel are trust and �,
I � reservation land. The parcel soutli of the Subject Parcel is Tribal fee land. The Tribe's
i
written request is an on-reservation acquisition under 25 CFR § 151.10. '
i
1.3. Re uest for Reservation Status �
i
9
The Business Council of the Tribe, acting under the delegated authority of the
l i General Council A endix B hereb re uests the Secretar of the Interior to declare I '
� pp )� Y q Y ,
the Subject Parcel a part of the Tribe's reservation pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 467. ���
2. DESCRIPTION OF LAND' ,
� 21. Location ;
,
i This 2.5 acre parcel location is described as the North 363.00 feet of the East 300 ;
I ; ft of the S W'/a of the NE '/4 Section 29, Township 115N, Range 22W (Appendix C). I �
i This parcel is currently located within the city boundaries established by City of ;
� Shakopee (hereinafter "the City"), Scott County (hereinafter "the County"), and the State I
I of Minnesota (Plate 1). Trust land bounds this parcel on the north and east. Tribal fee ',
� land is also located to the south (Plate 2). i
l i
� �
I ' Required under 25 C.F.R. § 151.9 ��
� �
1 i
�
----- ------ --- -- ------ -- -------- -------- ---------- ---- -
l i _ _�-._-- ------ - ---` _ _ � --- ------ _ ----- ------ ---- - --- -- _ ---- _ - _ --
I
I
� The Subject Parcel currently plays an important auxiliary role izl the Tribal �
� community aizd its econonly. An important Tribal roadway, Dakota Parkway, crosses the �
Subject Parcel. Tl�is Trihally fi�nded and maintained road provides access �u three inajor ���
�
county roads, Tribal residential aaeas, the Tribal government center, the Pow-Wow �
� grounds, and Tribal enter rises. The 1.5-mile Dakota Parlcway currently lies within three
� P
. . .
j �urisdictions: the Tribe, the City of Shakopee, and the City of Prior La1�e. �
i � The parcel also contains a rural residence. �i
�
i 3. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE ACQUISITION '
3.1. Statutory Authority
�
The Supreme Court recently confirmed that the fee to trust process "provides the
1 proper avenue" for an Indian Tribe "to reestablish sovereign authority over territory." �
, City of Sherrill v. Oneida IYldian Nation, 125 S.Ct. 1478, 1494 (2005). Section 5 of the �
IR� provides clear statutory authority for acquisitions of land in trust for Indian Tribes. �
�, "Acquisition of land in trust for Indian Tribes and individuals is authorized by the Indian ;
,
Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. � 465." Geor�iana Kautz v. Portland Area Director, BIA,
I
' 19 IBIA 305, 308 (1991). Under the IRA, Indian Tribes can purchase land and request ��
� the Secretai of the Interior to place the land in trust pursuant to §465. Chase v. ��
McMasters, 573 F.2d 1011, 1015-16 (8 Cir. 1978); City of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. v. �
�
� Andrus, 532 F. Supp. 157, 162 (D.D.C. 1980). Section 5 of the IRA, 25 U.S.0 § 465, j
' provides the statutory authority for this acquisition. I
i
i ;
�, Regulations implementing § 465 are found at 25 C.F.R. Part 151. McAlpine v. ,
, —
United States, ll2 F.3d 1429, 1431 (lO Cir. 1997). While 25 U.S.C. § 465 vests the �i
�
' �ecr•etaYy with discretion to make trust acquisition determinations, that discretion is ;
guided by the implementing regulations and requires that the Secretary's "final decision
� should be reasonable in view of its overall analysis of the factors listed in section ���
151.10." Ross v. Actin� Musko�ee Area Director, BIA, 18 IBIA 31, 34 (19$9); ,
; McAlpine v. Musko�ee Area Director, BIA, 19 IBIA 2, 6(1990). j
�
� This request is within the scope of the regulations governing trust acquisitions by ��
� the United States, and fulfills the policy as articulated at 25 GF.R. § 151.3(a)(1)-(3).
;
Z Required under 25 C.F.R. � 151.10 (a) �
i
2 �
I
—._ _--_..------ — -- _ -- -
� �
,
� First, statutory authorization for the acquisition is found at 25 U.S.C. § 465, et seq., thus �,
;
satisf in the re uirement of 25 C.F.R. 1513. Second in accordance with 25 C.F.R. �
; Y g q § � §
� 151.3(a) (1), the Tribe ow11s this parcel in fee simple absolute. Third, as set forth in 25 I
�
C.I'.R. � 151.3(a)(2), this parcel is adjacent and contiguous to the Tribe's reservation. !
� Fourth, the Tribe's request is necessary to facilitate self-determulation and economic �
� development. i
Trlist acquisition of the Subject Parcel is within the intended scope of § 465 of the ,
I
� IRA The uses planned for this land benefit not only the Tribe, but also the entire region. ��
I i
The existing transportation route was constructed using Tribal funds and provides an i
�� � alternative route for all peisons traversing the area. This route allows alternative �
i employee and guest access to the Tribal enteiprises. As a major regional employer, the i
� stability o� the Tribal economy is beneficial to the entire region and vital to the Tribe. '��
The planned land uses provide a direct benefit to the Tribe and an indirect bei�efit to all
�
i people livi�lg in the region. !�
, Trust status is required for full implementation of the planned land uses. With the i
i
� land in fee ownersl�ip the land is subject to a compleY interaction of local, state, Tribal
and federal regulation. The land's fee status greatly increases management diffieulties. �
i
�� 3.2. Constitutional Authori ��
�'S'
� Congress possesses the Constitutional authority to acquire land in trust and has ;
� ',
; properly delegated that autliority to the Secretary of the Interior in Section 5 of the IRA. �
' Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitutioii grants Congress the power ��
i i
' to regulate all commerce with Indian tribes. Article 1, Section 8, clause 18 grants '
i
Congress the power to pass all laws necessaiy and proper to regulate such commerce. ,
i
Using this authority, Congress enacted the IRA. Section 465 of the IRA delegates I �
i
authority to the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land in trust for Federally Recognized ',
�
Indian Tribes. '
i
l i �
�
3 The intent of the IRA's trust acquisition statute, as stated by the Representative Edgal• Howard, the bill's i
� House sponsor, was to provide "a land acquisition progra�n to provide land for Indians... who can use tl�e I
' land benefieially." 7$ Cong. Rec. H] 1, 730 (1934). Tlle Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals likewise ;
� determined that the ]egislative histoiy indicates an intent to develop Tribal economics, "to conserve and ��,
develop Indian lands and resources," and prevent any further ]oss of Indian lands. South Dakota v. De�t. of '
i the Interiar, 423 F.3d at 798. i
' ,
3
�
�
�
� The constitutionality of the IRA, specifically 25 U.S.C. §465, survived judicial i
� ��
i scrutiny on several occasions. �ection 465 was challenged as unconstitutioilal by the i
j State of South Dakota, and a ranel of the Eiglrth Circuit Court of 1�ppeals, in a two to one ��
i
decision, erroneously held the statute to be ai� unconstitutional delegation of authority by �
i
��� Congress. State of South Dakota v. U.S. De�'t of the Interior, 69 F.3d 87$ (8`�' Cir. '�
I i
, 1995). The Supreme Court b anted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the �
I
judgment and remanded the case. 519 U.S. 919 (1996).
� �
Since the Supreme Court's decision ui 1996, the Tenth Circuit Coui of Appeals �
i
also disagreed with the vacated decisiozi of the Eighth Circuit and held that "Congress �
ro erl dele�ated to the Secretar of the Interior authorit to make trust ac uisitions". �
p P Y b Y Y �) q �
l i ,
� United States v. Roberts, 185 �3d 1125, 1 li7 (lO Cir. 1999). Both the District of �
i
Columbia and the First Circuit Court of Appeals have also held that the IRA's delegation �
Qf authority to the Secretary to acquire lands in trust is constitutional. Carcieri v. Norton,
i
398 r.3d 22 lst Cir. 2005 - Michi an Garnin O osition v. Kem thorne� 525 F.3d 23 �
� )� _ g �PP P > > ,
��
� 33 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Furtheimore, in 2005, the Eiglith Circuit repudiated its 1995 i
decision and upheld the constitutionality of 25 U.S.C. �465. South Dakota v. U.S. Dep't '
; of the Interior, 423 F3d 790 (8 Cir. 2005}. Accordingly, the statutary authority is
i �
constitutional and, as a mattei of federal law, the Secretary can acquire lands in hust for '
the Tribe pursuant to § 465. '
� i
� 4. NEED OF THE TRISE FOR THE ADDITIONAL LAND
, I �
' Tlu�ee needs of the tribe include:
i
• Transportation •Sovereignty •Land Consolidation ,
� �
� 4.1. Transportation !
The Tribe's main roadway is Dakota Parkway. Dakota Parkway provides Tribal �
���� members, Scott County American Indian population, Tribal employees, and guests with
�
access to three eounty highways, tribal residences, the government facilities, the Pow- ��
� �
Wow groiulds, and Tribal enterprises. Mdewakanton Emei Services also uses �
i
I I �
� 4 Re�uired under 25 C.F.R. � 151. l0 (b) �
I I
�
4
�
� i
-
�
I
� I
� I
I
Dakota Parkway to reach Tribal residences and Tribal enteiprise and to trai�sport patients i
I to the nearest hospital. �
i ,
4.2. Sovereignty �
� Dakota Parkway is multi jurisdictional. Most of the road is on hust land, but where it '
�
� ,
� crosses the Subject Parcel it may also be under the jurisdiction of the City. The Tribe �
� completely funds and maintains this roadway. Concunent jurisdiction results in
ambiguity of responsibility az�d duplication of elPorts by the City and Tribe. The TT'ibe 1S !
I
! placed in a compromising position when attempting to meet its goverrunent �
I . i
responsibilities when exercising under the conciu jtu•isdiction with the �tate and local i
�
i
governments. Even in the absence of conflict, Tribal law is diluted as it seelcs to meet its i
� need under concurrent jurisdiction. For exainple, a routine task like upgrading lighting ,
i i
alang Dakotah Parkway on the Subject Parcel requires a duplication of efforts, including ,
� a review by the Tribe and the City. The Tribe's resotn�ces need to be under the sole ;
i
jtuisdiction for its resources and programs to be best utilized. ,
� 4.3. Land consolidation I ,
i A fragmented land base complicates land use planning and the day-to-day '
i
� management of Tribal resoLUCes. For example, a road construction project that crosses '
the parcel would require not only a Tribal permit, but a redundant and slightly diffei•ent �
�
� City permit. Land consolidation provides the best avenue for optimal use of Tribal
� resources and reduces jurisdictional conflicts within the Tribe's trust and reseivation land
i base.
�
� i
, 5. PURPOSE FOR WHICA THE LAND WILL BE USED' '
If the U.S. government takes this land into trust and declares it reservation status, the i
� i
� Subject Parcel, will be under the Tribe's sole jurisdiction. The Tribe's resources can be �
i
, used to their fullest capacity under trust status, where there is jurisdictional clarity. This i
, also removes the implied need for City resources that cunently exist under fee status. �
�
5.1. Transportation '
; Under trust status, the tribe will continue to fund and maintain Dakota Parlcway. i
� I
i s Required under 25 C.F.R. § I51.10 (c) �
I
5
i
i
----------------------------- - - - - !
___ ____ ___ _________._ ______ __ _____
_— --- ---- - - - -- -- _— -- — _ _ _ _ __ _.
_ _ _ _ .__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___
i
i
5.2. Sovereignty �
As a sovereign government, the Tribe will rightly have full jurisdiction ove�� its I
� transportation routes. The tribe has tlle regulations, staffing, equipinent, and resources i
I
necessary to meet its government obligations. Some of the regulations that can be fully �
,
� iinplemented under trust status include: i
I i
• Public Works provides various public services including street cleaning,
snow plowing, and debris removal. � ;
� �
• Mdewakanton Fire and Emergency Services. The Tribal fire i
i departi�nent services trust land. The department has mutual-aid agreements �
with several local fire departrnents to provide service upon request. '
�
, • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollution Discharge i
� EGmination permit. The Tribe designed its permit ta strict standards, �
i �
and is more stringent than similar permits held by local jurisdictions. This �
� permit provides a greater protection for surfaee waters for impacts that �
i �
may result fiom construction activities. �
� i
' S.3. Land Consolidation �
i �
In trust, Dakotah Parkway will be under one jurisdiction. The Tribe will design, fund and �
i implement any inaintenance of the roadway and related infrastructure using its staff, its i
i ;
peimits, and its resources. The benefits to the public from Tribal jurisdiction over the
i
� Subject Parcel includes transportation efficiency, quick fire and emergency service, and �
i
� legal clarity. Thus, placing the land in trust reduces checkerboard jurisdiction and �
� consolidates the Tribe's trust land base. �
i �
6. IMPACT ON THE STATE AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS I
R�SULTING FROM THE R�MOVAL OF THE LAND FROM THE TAX '
' ROLLS� i
Property taxes paid on the Subject Parcel are an insignificant percentage of the �
� �
overall Scott County and City of Shakopee budget. Removal of the land from the tax ;
� rolls will result in a loss of a roximatel $2,815 er ear u1 ro ert taxes aid to the �
' pP Y p y P p Y P �
i
� � 25 C.F.R. § 151.10 (e) I �
I
I
6 �
---- --------------- ------- -- - - - - - �
_ _-
_ --- --- -_ _
- - - - -- - - -- -- - __
_ _- - - _ __--- _ _ ._- _- _ -- - _ i
I
� l i
polltical subdivisions of the State of Minnesota (Table 1 and 2). This is the full extent of
i '
the impact on the state and local govermnent tax receipts. '
�
; 6.1. Table l, Parcel Property T and Where It Goes j
i i
Year Parcel Tax County City State Other � i,
2010 $2,815 $819 $829 $0 $1173 I ,
2009 $2,292 $679 $678 $0 $938 �
�
! 2008 51,872 $564 $552 $0 $756 �
2007 $1,512 $456 $439 $0 $617 �i
j 2006 �1,514 $468 $425 $0 $626 �
2005 $1,500 $485 $427 $0 $593 �
i
� 2004 $1,510 $504 $446 $0 $561
� 2003 �1,540 $507 $446 $0 $586 �,
' Data Source: Parcel Property Tax Statements (PID: 279290190). �
* Includes school district levies, special taxing districts, and non-school levies.
G.2. Table 2, Percent of Parcel Property Taxes on County and City Revenue �
i
� Year Parcel Tax County Revenue % of Revenue City Revenue % of Revenue !
2008 $1,872 $109,172,184 0.0017 $24,923,096 O.OQ75 '�
�
2007 $1,512 $105,512,634 0.0014 $24,218,667 0.0062 �
2006 $1,512 $102,084,157 0.0015 $22,813,683 0.0066 �
2005 $1,500 $84,123,212 0.0018 $24,214,573 0.0062 i
2004 �1,510 $79,667,334 0.0020 $23,156,311 0.0067
2 �
� 0 930 535 0.0074
2003 $1 540 $74,853 923 0.0021 > >
' ' i
� Data Source: State of Minnesota Auditors Office, 2010. The most recent County and City Revenues
' available are 2008. The data presented here overestimates % percent of revenue, as the entire property tax '
assessment was used for the calculation, not just the portion �oing to the county oi• city.
�
� i
Evaluating the cui7ent level of tax payment is the proper nleasure tax impact . ,
I All services infrastruch�re construction, and maintenance costs are being borne by the �
i
Tribe; therefore, there is no increase in costs to the state or any of its political !
�
, subdivisions. The total itn act is limited to a roximatel $2 815 er ear. I
P Pp Y � P Y
�
�
�
� �
� ' State of South Dakota v. U.S. Dep't of thz Interior, 423 F3d 790 (8`�' Cir. 2005). The Eighth Circuit �
' Court of Appeals recently upheld a detennination that an annua] tax loss of $2.587.02 is not significant. Id.
at 80 ] -02.
� 8 Under Minnesota Public Law 280, the State possesses crinlinal jurisdiction over Tribal Reservation and ,
trust lands. However, tlle Tribe pays for police service on n•ust lands. i
I �
� 7
,
----- ------- �
� '
— ------- -- -_ —_ — __ _ - ---
I � I�
�
I i
Even in the absence of propet taxes paid on trust land, Tribal enterprises
I
provide both direct and indirect benefits to Scott County and the City of Shakopee. The �
�
Tribe directly contributes money to both Scott County and the City of Shakopee for the �
' �
various projects (Table 2). The Tribe also contributes to the local economy by providing �
em lo ment and income to Scott Count residents and utilizin Scott Count -based i
P Y Y g Y
�� vendors (Table 3).
6.3. Table 3, Intergovernmental Aid
i Item Contribu6on Item Contribution I
I I
Swtt County CR 83
799G-2004 Blue Lake Sewer Access � 432,550 �o,o � i,810,531 �
Upgrade
1
� is96-zo�o Bluc Lake Wastewater'Treatoient $ 4,336,460 2oos Scott County CR 83 Overlay $ 249,500
�
Scott County CR 42 �
aooz Prior Lake Skate Park $ 25,000 i�9s $ 300,000 '
II � Up�rade i
I
zoo� Prior Lake Ryan Park $ 450,000 i��s-z000 Scott County CR 83 / 21 $ 443,80� �
i
i i99a-2000 Prior Lake Fire Dept Donation $ 49,663 1998-2070 Scott County Agreement $ 2,282,500 i
� !
i�es-zo�o Prior Lake Police and Pire $ 4,775,942 t99a-zoo3 Scott County CR 42 / 83 $ 2,525,�46 '
I
zooa, 2009, Shakopee SCALE Training $ 83 � �s
zooa Scott County Transit $ 5,000 '�
I, �oio paciliry �
i�96 Scott County Sirens $ 60,000 1999-2000 Shakopee Parks $ 70,233
�
� zoo6-zooa Scott Goun CR 82 U rade 2 0 99 _ I ��
ty pg $, 00,000 i 6 Shakopee McKenna Road $ 242,09�
�
i
Total $ 17,934,713 ,
�
I � �
i * Data Source: Triba] accounting. l i
,
I
,
i
i
�
' i
i
� I
I
g I I
i
j ___ _ _ _ _ -----
�
I
i 6.4. Table 4. Tribal contributions to Scott County economy (in Millions)
I � 2002 2003 2004 2045 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
I VendorpaymentsinScott $5.3 $8.0 $82 $ 9.4 $9.4 $12.3 $17.7 $1�3 $9.5
County �
, Payroll paid to Scott County $51.0 $51.0 $�3.8 $54.1 $51.7 $56.9 $62.5 $70.6 NA �
�
residents
� * Data source: Tribal accountintr and a roll. Data includes a ments and a roll fi all Tribal �
5 PY PY PY �
' enteiprises and government activities. Numbers are rounded. !
f
� i
7. JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF LAND ,
i
USE �
A trust acquisition of the Subject Parcel does not create confliets with adjacent i
'� land uses, existing or planned (Plate 3). The land directly to the north and east of the I,
' i
Subject Parcel is t�•ust land. These lands are imder the land use planning authoi�ity of the i
Tribe, and used as residential and government land. The Tribes owns the lands to the ���
� south, which supports the annual Tribal Pow-Wow activities. Adjacent non-tribal lands �
located to the west and northeast are used as agriculture and pasture land. There is little �,
' or no possibility for any land use conflict. ;
Given the transpor use and location of this land relevant to other Tribal trust
�
land, trust status will prevent rather than create jurisdictional problems. Environmental
; regulations will be consistent with the adjacent properties. Trust status places Dakota I �
�
Parkway under a single jurisdiction, the jurisdiction that funds, constructed, and !
maintains tlie roadway. If the Federal govei7unent acquires the Subject Parcel in trust, I �
i then the possibility for jurisdictional problcros or potential conflicts are greatly reduced, '
' if not eliminated. ���
�� i
The Tribe has worked diligently over the years with local governments to provide i
services to our members and be a good neighbor by establishing intergovernmental i
agreements with various governmental entities. �
I
9 Re uu•ed under 25 C.F.R. I 51.10 ��
q § Cfl
,
i
9 �
- - - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - II
I
� _..-..� ._ -- _.__ ._ _ _. _-__-._. - ...-... _ . .. -_. _" _. .... - . _ _...__ -. . . . ..
...-_ _- _ _-.._....__-__ _. ._____-_-_ ._ .-...
_ .._ . ._ _'___-_-...___- _�---.._-_.. __ __. ._
I
71. Table 5. Intergovernmental Agreements �
i 1. Tribe and Prior Lake, 1984 to the Present, Equipment SharinQ. Iuformal agreements to share I
i various Public Works equipment, including a sewer camera.
� �
2. Tribe and Prior Lake, 1989, McKenna Road Op�rade. The Community and Prior Lake I
cooperated on upgrading the portion of McKenna Road lying in Prior Lake from gravel to a '
� bituminous all- weather street. The improvement was designed by the City, and project costs were �
� paid by the Community. j
3. Tribe and Scott County, 1989, Reconstruction of County Road 83. The Community and Scott
' County cooperated in the realignment and up�i for County Road 83 to its current aligmnent. �
This work resulted in a safer and more efficient roadway.
�. Tribe, Prior Lake, and the Metropolitan Council, 1989, Sewer A�reement. The Commuuity ,
was allocated 300 sewer access units. As part of this agreement, the Community paid for tlle �
� construction of the infrastructure necessary to connect to the regional system. The Co�nmunity '
' also agreed to pay Sewer Access Charges for each unit connected and to pay a processina fee for �
� treamient af the wastewater.
�� 5. Tribe and Prior Lake, 1993, Police and Fire. The CaiYUnunity purchased police and fire services �
� froin the City of Prior Lake at a negoriated rate. �,
I 6. Tribe and Metropolitan Council, 1993. The Conununity a�► to provide certain information to
�1
the Metropolitan Council concerning land use planning, water use, and projections of water use. �
i 7. Tribe, Prior La�e, and Metropolitan Co��ncil, ]993, Amended Sewer Agreement. lncreased j
the available sewer units. �
�� 8. Tribe, Prior Lake, and Metropolitan Council, 1993, North Side Sewer A�reement. Lncreased �
� available sewer units and provided for connection of North Residential Subdivision. The !
�� Community funded the infi for the connectiou. �
9. Tribe, Prior Lake, and Scott Countv, 1995, Emer�encV Siren AEreement. The three
jurisdictions coordinated and cost-shared installation of several new emergency warning sirens to �
complete coverage in the Prior Lake west side. This included the Community and The Wilds. i
j �
] 0. Tribe and Prior Lake, 1996, Police and rire Updated A�reement. The police and fire service i
a��eement was updated for 1996 with a fee set at $240,000 per year.
�� I 1. Tribe and Shakonee, 1996, McKenna Road Un�rade. Even thou�h McKenna Road is a �,
Shakopee city street, the Community paid the entire cost, including design costs, for an upgrade ��
', from a rui gravel section to a rural, nine-ton bituminous siu�faced section. The City of Shakopee ;
� designed the road improvement and coordinated with Scott County regarding its intersection with ',
� County Road 16. !
� I
� 12. Tribe Tribal Court a�d Scott CountV District Court, 1996, ICWA Matters. Informal '�
� agreement regarding administration of the Indian Child Welfare Act and handling ofNative ��'
� American child welfare issues. �
i
13. Tribe and Scott County, 1997, Countv Road 21 Uparade. The County and the Community �
cooperated on the upgrade of County Road 2l where it abuts on tribal lands. Tl�e Comrnuuity �
granted Scott County an easement over trust lands_ The County provided ]and that wi11 give the
Cominunity a location for a frontage road to ensure continued access for residents. �
i
14. Tribe and Prior Lalce, 1997, Amended Police and Fire A�i•eement. The police and fire i
agreement was anlended and fees were establisl�ed for 1998 and 1999. i
�' ] 5. Tribe and Scott Countv, 1997, General A�reemeot. The Co�nmuniry and Scott County reached ��
a general a�reement that included an annual payment to Scott County of $200,000 and a process !
for entering into and negotiatiilg future projects of illutual interest. !
�
� i
I
j i
I lp I
---—----
�
I i
---__ ---- -____ __ __ - --. -- -- - -.. _ _---___ _____-- ----_ __.-
j �
I
i 16. Tribe and the State of Minnesota, 1997, Sales Tax A6reement_ The Coimnunity entered into an �
agreement to �oileot sales tax oa appiicable items sold on t� lands. The collected taxes are paid ,
� to the State of Minuesota and a portion is rebated to the Communiry. �
'� 17. Trihe and United States �nvironmental Protection AQencv, 1996,1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, I
I
i 2001, 20Q2, 2003, 2Q04, 2Q05, 2006, TEA. Tribal Environmental Agreement establisl�ing �
j environmental needs and fiinding levels for future fiscal years. This is an annual formal agreement �
between tribal �ov�rnments and Region 5, US-EPA. �
I
i 18. Tribe, Metropolitan Council, City of Savaae, and Minnesota Department of Natural '
! Resources, 1998, Water Quality Study. Joint fundin; for an Eagle Creek water quality �
�� monitoriug statioii at Boilin� Spruigs. i
I
i
19. Tribe, the State of Minnesota (Department of Human Services), and the Ten Other i
Minnesota Tribal Governments, 1998, Tribal/State Indian Child Welfare A�reement.
I Historic agreement created for the presei•vation of Indian families throughout Minnesota. '
I �
i 20. Tribe and Scott Countv, 1998 and 1999, General AQreement. Tl�e Com,,,u„ity and s�ott
Couniy renewed a general agreement that included an annual payment to Scott County of �
� $200,000 and a process for entering into and negotiating future projects of mutual interest. �
�
I I 2l . Tribe, Scott Countv, and the City of Prior Lake, 1999, CountY Road 42 Up�rade. The parties �
� a�•eed to upgrade a portion of County Road 42 to four lanes with the Community paying a ,
� significant portion of the overall cost. i
i
22. Tribe and Prior Lake, 1999, Amended Police and Fire Aareement The police and fire i
agreement was amended and fees were established for 2000 ($300,000) and 2001 ($320,000) with '
� future negotiation set. �
I i
23. Tribe and Scott County, 2000 throu�h 2003, General A�reements. The Community and Scott
Counry renewed a;eneral agi•eement that included an annual payment to Scott Cow�ty of �
�� $225,000 for 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. �
i
� �
� 24_ Tribe and Scott Countv, 2000, Countv Road 83 Res�jrface. The Community funded aproject to �
repair and resurface the pavement on County Road 83 passing through Tribal Lauds. Bstimated �
cost $300,000. i
� 25. Tribe, LTnited States EPA, Minnesota Department of Healtli, Cities of Prior Lalce and i
� Shakonee, 2000, Well Head Protection MOU. Inter urisdictional a lications of Well Head �
i .1 PP �
Protection areas for Public Water Supply wells. i
26. Tribe, Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, and M1�1-DNR, 2000, 13oilins Sprinas ;
� TCP. A�reement to list Boiling Spr as a Ti Cultural Property and jointly manage the �
� i
area.
27. Tribe, M1V-DNR, and Citv of Shaiconee, 2000, Memorial Park Burial Sites. Agreements on I '
; restoration of existing burial site to natural conditions and mana�ement of trails and park in the �
i area to preserve the burial site. ;
28. Tribe and MN-DNR, 2000, Litrie Rapids Site. Joint project to map and locate burial sites funded ��
� by the Tribe and included Tribal staff participation. i
' 29. Tribe and Minnesota Historical Societv, 2000, Multiple Projects. Participation in Lower Sioux ��
� Agency Historic Site preservation and Jeffer's Petroglyphs preservation. I
� 30. Tribe, Minneapolis Institute of Arts, and Smithsonian Museum, 2000, Exhibits. Cooperation �
i
i and funding ($25,000) for East�nan and Plains Shii exhibits and parCicipation in Eastman i
� Traveling E��ibit Committee. �
� 3 l. Tribe and Minnesota Rive► Joint Pow�ers Soard 2000 Cultural and Environmental Activity. �
i
i Partici}�arin� in Joint Powers Board activities to iin�rove environmental conditions on the Lower �
Minnesota River.
�
I I �
�
11
il
_ _ _ ---- _ ___ _
i
� ,
� 32. Tribe and Prior Lake, 2001 throuah 2004, Amended Police and Fire Agreement. The police �
and fire a� was amended, and fees were established. i
33. Tribe and Scott Countv, 2002, Countv Road 42 and 82 Intersection Improvement Proiect. A �
cooperative agreement for the joint project to unprove the intersection of County Roads 42 and 83 '
; including $2,500,000 in SMSC fundin� and an additional $400,000 paid by the SMSC for desi�n ;
fees. �
� 34. Tribe, M1Y-DNR, Metropolita�n Council, and Various Cities, 2002, Southwest Metro i
Ground�vater Group Memorandum of Understandin� on Ground Water Policv. A multi-
� jurisdictional agreement wliicl� set goals, objectives, and policy �uidelines for development, use, ,
� and protection of the groundwatei• resoui•ce. !
35. Tribe and Scott County, 2003, Dalcotah ParlcwaV Si2na1 Aareement. An agreement to place a �
signal at the intersection of County Road 83 and Dakotah Parkway with the Tribe funding the � �
! entire project.
36. Tribe, Scott Countv, and Loeal Townships, 2003, Aerial Photo�ranhv. Au a�reement fo�• ae�-ial �
� �hotograpl�s and other mappui� information was reached. The Tribe contributed $20,000 for the � �,
� project which was managed by the Cowity. i
� 37. Tribe and Scott County, 2003, Psvcholo�ical Services. An agreement was reached for Scott �
; County to provide psychological services to the Tribe Mental Health and Employee Assistance �
' Pro��ams on a contract basis. �
i �
� 38. Tribe and Prior Lake, 2003, �puinment Sharin� Pro�ram. An agreement to share expenses �
and usage of a crack sealer and a hot mix trailer, botl� of which are used to repair roadways. ,
� 39. Tribe and Scott Countv, 2003, County Roads 16 and 83. An agreement to exchange certain �
` land to provide rigl�t of way for the redesign of County Roads 16 and 83. �
40. Tribe and Prior Lake, 2003, Water Supplv Interconnect. This agreement allows the two ��
entities to intercolmect tlleir water supply systems for emergency use. �
, ,
� 41. Tribe, Scott Countv, and Various Cities and Townships, 2004. Cooperative agreement on �
stormwater management educational component for Clean Water Act, National Pollutant �,
� Discllarge Elimination System Permit, i
� i
� 42. Tribe, Prior Lake, Shalcopee and SavaQe, 2004. Mutual Aid Fire Agreemeut providing authority '
� and a process for inter-jurisdictional emergency response. �,
� 43. Tribe and MNDOT, Z005. MOU on I»dian employment. �
' 44. Tribe and Scott Countv, 2005. Tribe purchased approximately $18 million in Scott County ��
bonds to finance a road consn project. ;
i 45. Tribe and Prior Lake, 2004 throu�h 2006, Amended Police and Fire Agreement. The police �
and fire agreement was extended and new fees were established. '
; 46. Tribe, Scott Countv and Prior Lake, 2006. An agreement to provide right of way and funding to ;
assist in the redesign of County Road 82 to serve planned Priar Lake annexation areas. �
; 47. Tribe and the State of Minnesota, 2006. An a� to provide Automatic Defibrillator �'
� Devices (AED) to the State of Minnesota for use v1 Minnesota State Pah vehicles. ,
� 48. Tribe, Scott Countv, Cities in Scott Countv, September 2007. The Tribal Business Counci] ��
authorized participatian in the Scott County Joint Public Safery Ti Facility. Tlle actual ;
� agreement continues to be negotiated among the parties. �
49. Tribe, Scott Countv, MN-DOT and Federal Hi�hways. The Trobe and Scott County reached an
�
agreement regarding the aligmnent for the norttiward extension of Scott County CSAH 2l across �
SMSC lands. The MOU was executed by a11 parties in early 2008 I
�
�
12 �,
�
— --._.—. ---------- — ----- ---._. __ _ _ _ ------- --------- - -
� ,
i
; i
� 50. Tribe, the Prior Lake/Sprina Lake Watershed Di�trict, the Citv of Prior Lalce and the Citv i
of Shalconee. The General Council approved an agreement to fund, construct, maintain, and i
� mana�e a regional stonnwater and lake drainage channel that serves all parties. FuTlding is pra-rata !
i based on actual use. ��
� 51. Tribe, the State of Minnesota (Department of Human Service�), and the Ten Other �i
Minnesota Tribal Governments 2007 TribaUState Indian Child Welfare A�reement. �
Update to historic a�reement created for the preservation of Indian fa���ilies throughout Mi�lnesota. �
i
52. Tribe and Scott Countv, August 2008. An agreement to provide funding to Scott County for i
administrative and roadway maintenance costs. The agreeinent runs until 31 January 2012. i
� 53. Tribe and the City of St. Paul, Au�ust 2008. An agreenient to provide logistic, emergency i
seivices and command and signal support dm•ing the Repubiican National Convention. i
i
� 54. Tribe and Scott Countv, Auaust 2009. An agreement to pay the majoi•ity of the cost of, and i
� provide right of way for, the reconstruction of CSAH 83 fi CSAH 16 south to CSAH 42 from a
two land to a four lane roadway.
I 'I 55. Tribe and Scott Countv, Au�ust 2009. An agreement to pi'ovide right of way for the extension �
� of CSAH 21 fi'om its intersection with CSAH 42 north to U.S. Hi�hway 169. i
56. Tribe and Scott Countv, Auaust 2009. An agreement and lease to provide laud for a transit �
station located at the intersection of eth eatens,ion of CSAH 21 and CSAH 16.
� i
; 57. Mobile Medical Services, 2009. Agreements between the Tribe and various entities to provide �
support using the Mobile Medical clinic and cominand center ulcluding Scott County outreach, I
� various Tribal Governments, the Americau Diabetes Association and the Medt��onic Twin cities
i i
� Marathon. ,
�
58. Tribe and [IS-EPA. 2010 — 2012, Environmental Prob am Developnlent and I�nplementation '
Ab eement. �
59. Tribe and Scott County, November 2010. A�reement to reconst��uct the intersection of CSAH 42 ��
; aiid CSAH 17 to reduce traffic conflicts and increase safety. �
i
�' I
� 8. ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES THAT MAY ACCRUE TO THE ,
; BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS �I
j Additional responsibilities that may acerue to the BIA are ininimaL There will be ;
` a rniniscule increase in the BIA road inventory mileage. The Tribe may request BIA �
,
assistance for certain activities cairied out as part of the BIA trust responsibility, which '
i
� involve land and environmental issues. Such requests will constitute an insignificant '
i
i�lcrease in the BIA's responsibilities because the proposed tr acquisition will result in �
a slight increase to the Tribe's reservation and trust lai�d base. Therefore, the additional ',
i
responsibilities that may acciue to the BIA is noininal.
i
� �
� �
�
� io Required under 25 C.F.R § 151.10 (g) �
13 ��
- - -
I
'� -- ___ _ __---_ __-
_ _. __ _ _ _.._ _ _
I
�
i 9. INFORMATION REGARDING 516 DM 6, APP�NDIX 4, NATIONAL I
� ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND 602 DM 2, LAND ACQUISITIONS: ��
� HAZARDOUS SUSSTANCES DET�RMINATIONS" �
91. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment '
EMR, Inc. completed a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment of flle Subject ��i
�
� Parcel and found no recognized environmental conditions (Appendix D). This survey will ;
require updating either by a contractor paid by the Community and reporting to the BIA '
i
'� or by BIA staf£ i
i
9.2. Phase One Archeological Survey '
Bolton n '
a d Menk, Inc. completed a Phase One Archeological Reconnaissance of
the Subject Pareel (Appendix D) and recommended a finding of "No Historic Properties �
�
Affected". The Tribal Historical Preservation Officer, Leonard Wabasha, agrees with the
i
finding (Appendix D). i
9.3. Endangered Species Act �
The Tribe's environmental staff has visited the Subject Parcel on numerous ;
occasions while conducting faunal and floral surveys. They observed no tlu�eatened or '
i '
endangered species. This is consistent with its location in an agz�iculture/urban landscape. '
i The U.S. Fish and Wildlife does not list and species occurri�lg in the County (Appendix �
� �
� D). �
9.4. Environmental Assessment '
', There is no change in land use. The Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian i
� Affairs, categorically exchides land conveyarlce reques�s where there is no change in land �
use from further environmental review (Appendix D). �'
�
; 9.5. Environmental Compliance Memorandum ,
� Beyond the Pliase I ESA, the Tribe has also review an all-appropriate inquiry. i
i Short-tei7n radon 1 ve ' ' '
�
e ls in the baseinent of the Sub�ect Parcel s residential structure were
I above Environmental Protection Agency recommendations. In July 2011, the Ti
i !
'� installed a radon mitigation system in the home. ,
�
� ��
�
' i
; �
i l i i
I � i Required under 25 C.F_R § 151.10 (h)
�
I �
14
j
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _
,I . _.. _. _
�
�
: -- ,v - . .�- --�-- -- -- ___ _..._.._._._�___
�' � � �, �z. n u yi tei°�lYP` �� '�`a ry� �3�� �`+�1 4 4 3 t�'� 4 � � � s n � ` ... �
I { � l�t �y � h.. `.S�¢ dt � r� re .�fi3 :�, �- o . 4 } y tq i `z �"#3'h`S�� af 7(;
�� .7. ':`y.#;5�.' i rd.t ��ir i s�'S � ti , 1'" .i? 1 :,- } S y � � i �r � 1 �' , kp F� � y,� ,: . .
�3 � qr. ` wr,¢" � c �. �€x@��� . .� fi x � . � ,y n y i 4g
- , �' ia Y - r«tr � 4 ^�� � � t I + �� I $ tr Y .
� �i � � v�°v �� '� �. z c Fo-attq � 3 .
��-; � ��
� � '?I�q�� ��§ � � ���d_ t,,,.,,i�k"���s ..ta�tv�: ^s.rvph�,,{��t����A..: �� . a � 3 k tat` � a . t�@ , � !rR' i � . y . . . -
l i .. :
. ' � � :.,- ��... . .�...... ,� d,5�' S, 't" "s^;"-7� � _ �
� S � . _._.._: k . .
'� - ��k.s�_ �..r � y.�i-s���;'i����'���i g ��`�° i ` �'��� '` ?'�a'�'���a?�� �
�....._ . w. .�.__ _ �. .
� , _. � _ .� . - __..... � _ t � ��}
3 i - gavx � �;
, . . . . . . ,�'' � . .. . � . . � , .
i i � , �p � � � � f � �
>4 a i�C r �}�� a
� � i �" �„d ,� �� �
I �
r , l . �,� � � a ���
j . ' . . , ��� � . . ", y .
� �5 � , �, „ .: ..�� �� t - pt ., '... ����..� �' j � ' g , t7 . . � � . . �v;��'a�y�'�.�� .� � v � ��
, M � i
y_ . S .� . � � i i
�, ^� • � 1 . � t � �C � i � {� � � � . S N' I � '� Y
� � � �:: I �' d , A 1 � S )t� �.W l
��� ������� �� � �. .�.� � � ` . . m.. � R _ � ��� _ . - �c 1. � �� �
r , �.. �. F � �' � F : p
� �� V �,��1��17� � . . � � � 4�,0 . ?� � � ( � � � a , , x, � a
� ,'� �4 � ,,� ,, 'G'' y �� � o� `� �; � r � � �� Rr` `_h�
_ s� � `i ¢,'
� .,:�. e,,. �� � � , ` ' F" "� . . y v � , �.k � l Y�"�.� .
, _; .:. '_�,:.
I � e :� r d�, , . ,. ,e ., �� � -. ' ����� ��rr j�Y $ �za � _ dL.;. ro:»+', ` °� g r�'• w 2 !, � ..�� � 4 � ' 4�
� �. � �, �� „�� ��s, ' j � �,� �� �r.� �� � �, �i � ,I
t� k '� > y� . �+ � �v x .,fi � �� � .�. ��'
�� �t ��i� `.+ � � _ .. .._ ,�._.a . � . �`" @'r4 ��� � r� �+ r.
� � . Yy ,��� . � . . . .. . r �� �1 � 4 ��' '� �� -
I I i, � £:. ��, : 'Yf.�-'1 " �.,4� � � �.�' $�"p;� ^�� �,- I �.t'� w
� ��� i a^� � � '��, .. . � � "'^ w s �. � � _ . �;:.�,��� ,� �� � C� � �� � .a' � .
' I A ' . \'� '°� '4� . � � , . . ��°. .� � ,T.�, �".." � � g +
� R � .' ,� ..,. �� ` "'� _. . . . � .. �. � . � • 1 �. � � .,� ` ' c a G'�3'fi e * ,€s �'.', �. f � ' a �,�,b+.� e : :: �
� } . � � , . '��� 3 � ° . � . . �' $ $"` � ` 9 " �". — '""" �� � .1 �.
. i�. r � . ���� �"�', a - ^. "�,a� � t �"
, , �.
. �.
,, b �'�„ � � ��� �
o � , t ti _�
� � 1 � r #�st s� � �. � � : '.�:, , ar.•c " °n'_ �;� `_ .� .. �.� ; a
� xY�"r��„ � .i ^.�� b 5�� , � � ,.a � t �e,, r- ._�. � r . * r ;_ i'fPi"�,J�' ��A$�n �� �:
�. :k � ��� � �����t i ��1 c S��' ��": � � ( � � .` .
� � `�+ d . � � �. : . '� . _ .. ��, js��� t � r � s � � � -r _ �� I r�� ai r
� �*�� �ft5�:�rv�7tl4' �.a p ++�` �
Nb'a' �Ga� (. �r 4 �� § �, d �. �. : �, � _ . r�. . �fl .� � f ��� ���� l
i .. . �z��� �,,�'��, a��` .+, �,�;��•a '� a r . �, . § ?y�� . �� .. �� - a- - ,� �-� ( �'� s - � { ..
I � I�. . +�i��'� E � � � �� *,.�"c.� �M`" � 5+ � f;�� �`�•:. � t�A i .. � { t �:��1
��xi� i f � tt��.� � ':1���: .� 6^'� �'�k �Z ��L� a �.�- � �I S
� � �'� � �t"('�: ° � �t I a'{.�` a�� .i A � i ,� i �" �. � � � l r � t � a .
i. �� �; _ t�"',. �ew7'+�� n�"'1. .� rr `� � t� x iti: � f � . S � �` t N i c: .
� � f+ � � '. , . s s.�
I 4 �` � . .`, 1 .� _ r 1 �+.: .;1 Cfi :,- ,,;� "r` . 3 , .:. �' t � Y _.
.
R .'
,
� � �
i �.. ..*., .F mu:;; �� e ' � .. .- � �^,_,� . I � ..._.___._.� ��� �.. �.
`�a r�£r , �
n1 +,� 3 '� '?� � mn � `�'�3t_-__,.._ .. .,,,. '�. �' ...,.� _.._�
�i � Subj°ct Parcei �
� SII.�lipl'L;L f�I1�EWAI�ANTO�,' SIOUl� C4l4T�lUN(T9' 5MSC Fee Land
� Stemmer Fee to TrusY Request ��� �
, �,�� 2 � SMSC Trust Land
' Sui�jeet Parcel Locatiou � {�� Non-SMSC Land
i Snura: SIv1SC Spaual Data.Scot2 CoimC� GIS
0 0.125 025
I�ritles
I
V10EN1TY MAP �
�, �-==� � D KOTAN ARKWAYSE 1
V SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA � � � � � �
DATE 11 05 2010 SCALE __ �
I N C O R P^ R A T E p pRA1NN S,1W 951 �
, AP�PROVED MR EVISION 1
.�.
�' _.. ..._ _ _ . _..._ _. _ . _.. _ _.....
_ _ _ . _ ........: ......._ _ . _. __.
i
SMSC Land Holdings
�� _ P ; , -
_ �_ _ _ _
� and
, _
� �` _ - � Q __ _ Blue La� ' Purchase Year
.
� � r - -- _
� � - 1 0
�
� - _
o s _
�=, --. . - -��- _
L �� , - _
. � , __ _
_ � _ �� _ � ,
� �--- `� : , -
11 :�� 1 ' I...._ ..._ � 1...�` �� ��
: '-` ' __ `` � _
° � F h L k
= - � � � \� ; _ ,`_ � , is er a e
�J � �
�_ �- r . r . . : . �. I„� _ i- --.. _ --__ / �` � _�_ � _._-- ''1 I � i
* � J , i.' �. � �a\ � a l .. _ �llZ � j � �/ `�� �� I I i
� �- �
,
, �- � �,� � � � �{ � ; � _ _ _ __ - ---_
�
/ � 'i�' �. �> �,' � ���^� � �� '1_ �1 i �r��i���m� � �_ � � _" � _-------� `` �
��
. �{
, , � � ��
� �• � Y ..�-� � �^� ' 1 . :' , � �,. �c �1 . 1-' � i �'i� � ��. ��� � �� ._�...� - -
„ �
:,. ,�t _ � �� J ___ -
. . �--� �_,,,� .����� __ �- �
,..� . .�; � _ _ _ _ .
� r ,,
i '`� -1
, . ��„ .. r �L•��e � ��o�� �T ��� �_.�,. I � � ... <<�� �
, - J � i\� ��V�{ __ I -
- '. _ _ � ` _ _...� � �_ � �
� � � � � ���� � � � s � I f l i T1 ,
' � 1 i � � I i l�\ : �
� .
�
�
I
. ,I !�Y '` - - F �.`.� � e h �� � � � � � `) I '� � , .
� ��� ,� " � 1 i ` � � - ; i I � T f e � p ,
C { I I � I � � ��__� i '' � r � � ' 1 ` \, 'I._ �, i- -....._- _..... _..___ �_._ _' \ �-�%� _ 1 -- '��
i�� ?-I'[� I��I___.._..._.. J��4� I�1�� ? :I # 1 Ij�.. � I �, ;. ,t �`Ii � ��y�\���_ _,,, ;I, � � Y._�_���_ -: . .__.._ �..� ._. � -�-. ���;� 1 i -�-----
� i 3. � I � � � I� ! � . _ __ _ � �
` r %,' f i t I J' ; r ' I �; {� t �^��'��� _�_ �.-� Ouarry Lake � a�
�
• ,�--...�
��'t . �'� � �-''1_ � F7 = � �, � i i ; � � � �� t� � � +� ��� ,« —... - -._ � ��: .
�, ,
l �
- � _ -
�
�., �r �� �� �.i ���, � �- � = i _ i<�`` � ��:, �i� �� ,�`� ��� -- _� ;� ��, _.__� _
I
t . i i.. . �, �1�, -. �. � _ , r . ��1 � � � I
f � _ ` ' = � �� ';�� ` � ,. _.._ __ _
;' �7� 1 .��. ,I �� �� i � L 3 f � i ��� � ��' � � � i �_ � � _
a � i .r, ,� , �, . , �. ..: : _I ti ��, , ��,
\ � �{ �, � l .- ���' ' �.� T ] � : `�; _ ..;� = t� . �� . i � "'� _ � � l � � l ..__. _ _.___. _.__ _. _._ _ .... ... .
\ 21� ..f . � ��.�...,��1..! �ll� _rr!��r , ��� .. ..��t� ' ;:-�..�. `,'�_� _ . �. ��=�. � l i' , . � �``� ' 1 � � - - - - -- �---- 6 .. __. Q
-. �J C ..\...... � _. � .., �. -� ._...�::� ..-._ ' .:. , .:^ ::; ..I...,}f..� - ��� .�� -- ��� -,/,.fi, .. _ __ ' _
� .. ,�, ,.� t � -,_,� .. � =�,� , . . u_, _ : , _.�,. , � �, - i . � ,v � � ,_,
�� ;, ._ �- , r:= <;: � �,-.. :. _� �i �� , .. <. , n,_, �= _.. i;_ Ir ` � _i-. � I
::�,�'� �Y ...:.., .,... �.,_., „i . .:�, .;� . , ,,�, . r�C.J , _,_.�. :. » �'.i..�,� t :.,;., _ v L.. : �il�J_, � �-'r ��.' I i ��� i �;'�'._:',�_,' ._�_ ,_... .. I --
�
I
.., ��� 1 { . n � � ��, � '� -� ji � -�°�� t , � . '� _��� � ' `.� u , - ��;_ - - � � � � i _�. � _ ���ou�e��� �
I < �' I " �; �..';.. � .i__;,._ ,..::e: � 1 ie,.> � _�; , i ;:; �..,F , ,��u r .y . �_.. .. `?.i__ 17 � >� -�. � \ � i _1___ ;c. :'� . .
; i� $i � � ;• _� g
\ �` � . _ __ �-- �._., .� -, .,;�. �,� ......;- r ��, r ...__. �. . �"�, -c : ::; I A� ���m�, � fi '', �� ,'�,-.�_ � � I I:� -
� u.�. ..._ , __.._. , _.._._ <, . ..,-. 1 I�I /-_ii5' ) ..,'!"'��,% . ... ;.. � . ..,?-.?., k�. - - , .:"..-..t. - h \ � . 1... m I ___. I I .
,
� k _ _ _.
, , , .,�. I _ . r
� �..�:;; . ._, , A ,,- -1F.' ,,_ � ,___�.::_�� �, � �� ;r, i �I � = �� -- -
:,.., ., , � _. ... r �.�...i.. `; '.x . � C:: y ,.,� . _- � •� __ : � �. I 'l -- i_> �� , — - R..
, x>_� �.. :Y: - �: v :. i . '-.,. .,..� � � ; i � �y ! __ ..:;: 1 .. . ,. ., r; , I � l :.-1 .._ - � � � 1 _ - I I� [ e o I -
-..� . ;;. . ,:d.. ....>.. . ._�_. . '.:._ . �i" .
..r , , , v - a 1 �.: x I r r�_r:_�� � - . � ..,; - ___ __. i ,,.... �,1 ", �(� � , , . — � � �, I � City Boundary
=�.�:, � : � ,., y� .;. y� __ ,_._ . _� '�� ... __ =-t s�� ,�C� J m 1,-- .- �r _
.,, . � � i ii_ i x' :,� _ i i `� _.c�`, �,�aal, ' ___. - � I -�l: �_ � I .1 > � - n ' ml k � I � li
, ;�,_' �, `n �� r , ,,, 7 � ti ''-=� ' f I \\� ��.% _ ���,� � � I IParcels
- -'= � > �� _ _
� '�
.. , T - . : a � {cF - -� ,�� �� r �� - )
�
� �" ,
�
_-„ _...i.:y- � _. �� ,, 'i.,.::_ �'. i�' ---. � ._. .... . ���_.._ a�V� _"��.1 ; ; I � �::t� �`� i �kV A��'��l �� ��� ,rl .� ��....._.....�-
�__
_ _
, � s r � � �mn 0��n� ��' __t _ I � � I{-�--� > . , a, � a 7 -- _ s .,, _ _— -, �1 ���`� `� �s�� r ,� �- � __, ^�� _ SMSC Property in Fee and Trust
,
r � ��t / r r
. - �1 ' :.� c.�s�• �I�i !� T._ . __�� r��_n xi� � �._ . 1} ' . � .'�� ,`4"1 ,� � .-:__ ��� I � I *,. , - , i�. 1 -:. . \�"y �cn � � L �V� "f� - - I -
] f - J
;= "i_ . o �:s• '"��i:,�! I I I � - 7 I = � 1 ��ET ly i��' S�1 I ��+ � li - '�✓ �SF���1� V� �\� �:` \ . i� �,. L __::1� 1 �
�..�. .. ; , ce.c.�„' , fi�€, z .i �il' � �\ 1 I
... : i .. � ��. . o � I ., , _ _
,_ ___-____ ... � -- j�l:._ .. nF3' ,� j' �it�.��,`_ i' ,.,.', ,. .
� .�,�:- , ..: ` r , �„/ , ;.. ��. , r . W .__. t,_, � J � ! i � Dean Lake \\�c�is `��� � � �` ; 1 ,�,� c. ; i \) :.. � � . - StatUS
I) � .'1L_1 ._ } I N` ..
�- ..= __ ' �. � � �.'le'. �� ��I W�i. � �'�i -�:: , ,_ i , I at F „�g � .y I i I � f�� :I{ Y � ,1�. I at ��� i __ _ .._.
,'` ,.� . .,.� _....� I( . ' a�.. e r�_�:[` ' ;:�, � ^: :_ . �,.,:��;�i.� I —_ � -. ... I :I l i . ,r ] � _. ---- ..... __ �\��.:: ..:I =- i - - I1C3t1011
- _, ° .. . i t f1, . ............. � ���� zoo� � }��i --- PP
dif P 4 ` ___ .,, : 1 I E , l i �� - , ".-\ ��• �f��_ - `
�i ' ��� �f '� i� 1 � ' �� � �t�� f i�`3''� i� .::1 � � � ? - _
�?„ _- � a ; ' � � � _.. � -: � R'nf'� n. —�> �� ��� , �`� -�, ��� � � � � � � � � I E�
��.,a�� � ____ F >,:�i i r �,-jE. -_ T' ,j::. Ft � = � � j' C r �' i �`-._., "41���I I ' � t � �r _ �,z.;a� Fee
_ _ - - _ I j � L _ _' _ � '-. , � �v L � ( I
.`� �I �-_..__ T*. i� ,�'i �.1.. � -�=' 1 Fi}� -� ` .. � � F. 1994 . ��;,,1 � �� � � T �[ill.ii ;_, ' � I �y ]�
� � {`�'� ` �' i = � � � _ — ' � L _ � Fee Acquired After 2005
� � �,� (� I I, ^ r .
� ni . t irr : C�� � 1994 I '. rz i� '�t �
' , ' ; � aa ,x,� , {, ,�,, , � � , zoos � .,��:_,_�, �� � i � � , Z�
' � � .� � � �,���,� �'� � �', � 3t� , ,� �� i _ � J _ ��, � I �, - ti� �� I �1 T�st
_
r � J � I ' �C cT I
� .
____...____... [ � } _
I 1 r � ., f I� 1 C r 4 r x I I 2007 \ /-- ]1'.e �._7 = � }� .lr t _-._. __
, I I
1 i i , I �
� �f I�) ��-F?' 1��7 I .. , � ,., - � � � t�t� r F ,l 1 II—._ . I � � I � ��,— Jh � I���� . r \ � .:
�� ��� �� �,� -� ��L r���': � �� - t , �� < <_ � r � zoo� � � � �� i i �
ri �� � �_ �r ��� ri1,i �� ,;��, I �,.
�� s � _ � a = � ` � � 05 � 'y � _ __; 1 � I 1 � ��=� ���
_�tI 1 Lllnl� � � � � _ � j �
T� I� �: t J i i .- ,+ I ,
F„r� � � i F i'
. _ .... --
�il � �_r �<��.,��, I � , zo — __ I -- _
i � [ 171C �� � � �` _ � �
� � �_. ._� �� � � 04 I 1994 1994 � ��� "-�2007__.Li .�._ ������IL�� ����'.
� J
f �
\ � �\_ '
"4 -; :. ._. � . .� f .... ::.... p 1996 , --��1(l�Iln ��G�-
� _ ' -.. - - . .._ _._ ..
7 _ ���� 1 _ - �- �� % 7 � �7 2002 �-
� �� 1 _ �l _ ( � �� �� � � zooa � < � �' ��`� 11; �
� ,
�_ ,� � :_ r � , �, 1 _ ��; _ �� !
�. 1 i1 l � .. � :� , I
, iZlI��11� � T I �I.'{ i 1 1 �� -� 1 � — - _ __
�� �I � 11 - L ���.I 1.�� i
�<<� � ; :���� _� �_�l f�� _�
, , �� . ,
-
r. ��\ �
�\ _ i
; � ���- 1 _ _ -- �o �� o i � I
Luke ODo�v�� � � '�. ��, � � -�1 0�• izooa� �_..
� � �i zoo ��
�i� d �:_ � -! �-� � _�......i....
_ o
- _�_
C ��`` —
2oot � 1 � i..
; o _ r :..
� r i'I � r 1
—...... `. -,-
��� � � I zoot o � I
-� � ; �
..
� j zooa I � - ,, ___
� � � � z� �
` ' � � zoo6 -- zooz � �
'� - I z z�
__ � . �
� i _ � _ .
� ,; �
� � �� � �
,
_ _ _ ____ _ 1��, � �
_ ,
,,�: .,
_,---- `
� ��
. ;
�
� � :>
� , , zoo� '
i
I ( ,
-- ,
- ' SHAKOPEE
_ __ _ _ zoo, �
,
- - --
— - — _ __
_ 1�•F-�•
S�-IAI��I'EE
December 23, 2011 �
Ms. Diane Baker
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Midwest Regional Office
Norman Pointe II
5600 West American Blvd., Suite 500 . ��
Bloomington, MN 55437 �
Dear Ms. Baker,
The City of Shakopee received Diane Rosen's letter yesterday, December 22" which granted a
30 day extension of the comment period for the Shutrop and Stemmer properties. The extension
is now until the end of January. Thank you for your efforts in facilitating that consideration.
The new Shakopee City Council is being sworn in on January 3 At that meeting, we will be
making a presentation to them on these latest applications, and will be seeking general direction.
OLU desire would be to then schedule the meeting with the Midwest Regional Office of the BIA
(and for the tribe to be invited), if possible before the next regularly scheduled City Council
meeting on Jaiivary 17
Please advise if that is possible. Thank you.
� 1
� ��. i��.��
Maik McNeill
City Admiilistrator
COMMLTNITY PRIDE SINCE ZHS�
129 Holmes Street South • Shakopee, Minnesota • 55379-1351 • 952-233-9300 • FAX 452-233-380] > wtivw.ci.shakopee.mn.us
.;� ,s24 �; United States Department of the Interior ,�
�� �
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS �
— Midwest Regional Office
f� � Norman Pointe II TAK� PRIDE
5600 West American Boulevard, Suite 500 �N�MERICA
Bloomington, MN 55437
IN REPLYREFERTO: � � .��'' � � ' � � �
Division of Fee to Trust
FEDERAL EXPRESS 8989 4683 7305
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Re: Fee-to-Trust Proposal for the SMSC Shutrop and Stemmer properties
2 Request for extension to file comments in response to Notices of Application
Dear Mr. McNeill:
This letter is in response to your correspondence on behalf of the City of Shakopee (City), dated
December 14, 201 l, and received by this office December 15, 2011, in which you request an
additiona130-day extension to the Notices of Application (NOA) issued for the SMSC lands
formerly known as the "Shutrop" and "Stemmer" properties. The reason for the extension is to
allow the newly elected City officials the opportunity to be involved in the discussions before
finalizing comments on the current trust applications.
The NOA subject to each of the above stated applications were received by the City of Shakopee
on November 1, 2011. The City requested and was granted an initial 30-clay extension through
January 1, 2012. We have considered the City's request for a second extension, which is hereby
granted for an additiona130 days. Therefore, the City's comments must be received no later than
January 31, 2012. No further extensions will be granted.
If you have any questions, you may contact Diane Baker, Supervisory Realty Specialist, directly
at (612) 725-4586.
Sincerely,
a
�"w "�� ' .
Regional Director
cc: Stanley Crooks, Chairman, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
Stanley Ellison, Land Manager, Shakopee Md�wakanton Sioux Community
REtsE1V�0
D�� 2 2 �Q11
� � S}{�KOPEE
Hand out from Bill Rudnicki, Tribal Administrator, /�• r l
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (sMSC) Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
/ l
January 3, 2012
Summary of Intergovernmental payments to Scott County and other jurisdictions
ITEM 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 15 YrTotals
Police & Fire $240,000 $250,000 $251,250 $262,929 $291,763 $315,000 $331,250 $338,750 $340,000 $340,000 $360,000 $360,000 $360,000 $360,000 $375,000 $4,775,942
McKenna Road $242,095 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $242,095
Emer enc Siren $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000
Coun 83 / 21 $0 $0 $67,551 $187,129 $189,125 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $443,805
Coun 83 Overla $249,500 $0 $0 $0 $265,215 $0 $0 $514,715
Coun 83 4 Lane
$1,810,531 $1,810,531
Coun 42 / 83 $0 $0 $130,950 $56,180 $63,060 $108,626 $87,381 $2,079,349 $0 $0 $0 $2,525,546
WasteWaterTreatment $167,750 $235,851 $248,472 $317,961 $332,284 $320,162 $315,549 $453,988 $549,675 $501,548 $593,220 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $4,336,460
SewerAccessChar es $31,550 $7,750 $9,600 $196,350 $15,750 $12,250 $0 $168,350 $40,950 $0 $0 $0 $482,550
Scott Coun A reement $0 $200,000 $200,000 $212,500 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $210,000 $280,000 $280,000 $2,282,500
Donation - 42 Road U rade $300,000 $0 $0 $0
$300,000
Shako ee Park $40,775 $29,458 $0 $0 $0 $70,233
PL Fire De artment Donations $25,000 $1,500 $15,000 $8,168 $0 $0 $0 $49,668
Pr.Lk/S r.Lk Channel Im rovement $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,772 $19,395 $0 $176,167
Pro e Taxes $17,008 $21,423 $25,988 $28,690 $29,067 $38,332 $69,631 $79,018 $116,311 $161,782 $203,546 $328,406 $430,611 $719,377 $688,192 $2,957,383
Coun Road 82 ro'ect
$750,000 $521,287 $392,989 $0 $0 $1,664,276
Prior Lake Park Im rovements $25,000 Skate Park $450,000
$475, 000
Hi hwa Patrol Defibs $62,814 $62,814
Scott Coun Transit $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000
Ci of Shako ee - SCALE Trainin Facili $4,000 $0 $0 $34,574 $44,604 $83,178
Universi of Minnesota Plaza $2,000,00� $0 $2,000,000
Totals $783,403 $515,024 $1,235,311 $1,305,014 $1,420,675 $1,019,370 $1,053,811 $3,344,455 $1,280,936 $1,003,330 $2,419,580 $1,309,693 $1,915,587 $3,513,346 $3,198,327 $25,317,863