The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10.D.1. Continued Discussion of Shakopee Mdewankanton Sioux Community (SMSC) Applications to have Land in Shakopee Placed in Trust ��. D , l. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Continued Discussion of Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) Applications to Have Land in Shakopee Placed in Trust MEETING DATE: January 17, 2012 INTRODUCTION: At the January 3, 2012 Council meeting, a briefing was provided on the current applications to place land located in Shakopee into trust for the SMSC. The Council members generated a number of questions and comments that it directed city staff to try to get answers to, and report on. Following is an update on those comments and questions. Additional information is expected to be available to the Council on Tuesday. A meeting between the SMSC's representatives, City staff and BIA officials was held on Tuesday, January 10, 2012. At the close of that meeting BIA officials stated that they would note for the record that the "good faith meeting" required by the BIA/City of Shakopee consent decree had been met. The BIA officials also reiterated that the deadline for Shakopee's comments will be January 31, 2012 despite City staff noting its request for a further extension in the event substantive discussions continue. DISCUSSION: The questions and comments generated by the Council on January 3 and an update on them are as follows; i 1. Can the City get a comprehensive plan from the Tribe? �� Stan Ellison, lands manager for the SMSC, reported that they have a draft 2011, map-based comprehensive plan. He said that he would ask the eusiness Council on Wednesday, January 11` if that draft plan could be shared with the City. A meeting for Friday, January 13`" has been set for the sharing of this information, if approved by the eusiness Council. 2. What are the current land uses for Tribal lands in Shakopee? The propose uses for the parcels that are the subject of the current applications are the growing of crops (former Shutrop parcelsJ and roadway related (former Stemmer parcelJ. Until the planned meeting on January 13 staff will not have information about proposed uses for other parcels located within the City of Shakopee. 3. What are [the Tribe's] future land acquisition needs, so that Shakopee can use that information to best plan for the City's infrastructure needs? Staff was not provided with an answer to this question in quantifiable terms. Mr. Ellison stated that the SMSC's acquisition plans are not "aggressive," but are more in the nature of 'filling in the gaps" where the Tribe already owns land. 4. How does the Tribe feel the land uses proposed for the two parcels meet with the intent of the Indian Reorganization Act? It was represented that the Tribe takes the position that under the IRA it does not have to demonstrate a"need" to take the land into trust, but rather that it is reasonable for the land to be put into trust for tribal sovereignty reasons. 5. How much of the power which is generated by Koda Energy needed for use by the Tribe, and how much is sold back to the grid? What is the percentage of the biomass that would be produced for Koda from the Shutrop parcel, versus the energy plant's total needs? Rahr Malting currently uses all the heat and about 1/3 of the energy generated by the Koda facility. The majority of the energy generated is currently sold to the grid. It was noted that about 10,000 acres of land would be needed to grow crops to keep the Koda facility fueled. 6. The City Council wants to make sure that the land development environmental impacts are fully reviewed. The City's interest was noted, but there was no Tribal response on this item. 7. The City should follow County's lead regarding Carcieri decision. I � There was much discussion of this point, and it was related that if the City were to assert that Carcieri applies to these applications, the Tribe would see this as a"bright line" issue that would have a negative impact on the SMSC/City re(ationship. Attorney Greg Olson of the Bluedog law firm, representing the Tribe, enunciated the I� test under Carcieri to be 'whether the BIA has jurisdiction to take land into trust for I the Tribe,' not 'whether the Tribe was formally recognized by 1934.' I I I � H:ACC\2012\SMSC trust applications_01172012.docx 2 '' • The Tribe contends the test is met for the SMSC for the following reasons; • The "Mdewakanton Band of Sioux in Minnesota" (the Band) existed prior to the 19341RA, and was under the jurisdiction of (and recognized by) the federal government by virtue of treaties entered into by the Band and federal government; • While there has been some thought that the treaties are no longer valid and ' in effect, both the SMSC and the eluedog firm believe that the evidence is that the treaties are valid and in effect; • The have also concluded that the resent-da SMSC was reviousl Y p Y p Y recognized as part of the Lower Sioux Indian Community (Lower SiouxJ, which in turn was or anized under the IRA in 1936• 9 , • The Lower Sioux also entered into several treaties with the federal government; • They contend that there are 1972 1975 and 1980 congressional decisions/actions that make it clear that the SMSC is the successor to the Band, and presumably therefore the BIA has jurisdiction to take land into trust for the SMSC; • The 2009 U.S. Interior Department decision on an unopposed 80-acre trust � land application (which we understand to be the former polan property in Prior LakeJ, included analysis by the BIA that demonstrates that the SMSC is successor in interest to the Band and Lower Sioux, and thus that the BIA has jurisdiction to take land into trust for them, as they were by virtue of the 8!A analysis `federally recognized at the time of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act. " ; An approach that was actually suggested by the Tribe's representatives was choose �, not to raise the "Carcieri" issue in the context of these rwo applications, but �, essentially to reserve it for future applications. ' 8. Does Tribe have a number of acres that it needs for long term i planning; how many tribal members are there now, and how many are ' projected? It did not appear that the Tribe's representatives had numerical responses to these I questions. 9. Do the Tribe's development needs factor in their non-Trust lands? � i There was not specific discussion of this question. 10. The City Council recommended that there be an ongoing joint commission including the County, Prior Lake, Shakopee, and the Tribe � to look at environmental and transportation needs, and that the Tribe I should meet with the City to discuss mutual goals on an ongoing basis �� (i.e., residential, economic development, etc.). ', H:ACC\2012\SMSC trust applications_01172012.docx 3 �� r - I �, It was related that the City of Prior Lake had made a similar request, and that the � , � rren Chairman is amenable to the conce t. Note: the SMSC s eneral election or cu t p � 9 f Business Council positions is the same date as the City Council meeting.J A tentative meeting has been scheduled for Friday, January 13rd to discuss this concept further. �I ALTERNATIVES: ! In light of the BIA's current reaffirmation of the January 31 deadline for comments on the I � current applications, the City Council should provide staff with direction on the following; � 1. Whether to file comments opposing the current applications. Should Council � provide this direction, comment will need to relate to such items as a) potential ' i loss of tax revenues, b) land use conflicts. The Council should also discuss and ; provide direction on whether to substantively raise the "Carcieri" decision and related issues in connection with these applications, or to reserve the issue for future purposes. 2. Whether to file comments in support of the current applications, but reserving the City's rights to object to future applications. � I ACTION REQUESTED: 'I � Provide direction to the City staff regarding comments to be filed in connection with the current a lications. � pp � � , , � � � '� � ' I � I I, I i � H:ACC\2012\SMSC trust applications_011 72012.docx 4 I �