Topic: Port Authority
started by: Nose for News
Posted by Nose for News on Jan. 12 2004,11:40 pm
Check this out. Doesn't this sound familiar?Why do people insist on voting and making motions over the phone ? Isn't this why we have a quorum? Why don't people follow state law or their own bylaws? Weren't they written for a reason?
An elected Council not doing its job: forming a gutless committee so it doesn't get the heat from the Port Authority?
January 8th, 2004
Panel doesn’t call for Port Authority audit
Committee calls for some changes
By Dan Nienaber
Free Press Staff Writer
NORTH MANKATO — After spending several weeks digging through stacks of state statutes and bylaws governing North Mankato’s Port Authority, members of a citizens committee decided an audit of the city’s economic development arm isn’t necessary.
The five-member North Mankato Citizens Committee was appointed by Mayor Lowell Sieberg and asked to make an audit recommendation to the City Council this month. By a 4-to-1 margin, the committee voted against the audit but went ahead with a plan to make several recommendations to the Port Authority.
Having the Port Authority comply with state statutes, having its bylaws either followed or changed to follow the way business is done and making sure the city is compensated when city staff and equipment is used for major Port Authority products were some of the recommendations being considered.
A final report will be prepared by committee chairman Bob Kitchenmaster, a North Mankato certified public accountant, and presented to the City Council later this month.
Councilman Gary Zellmer, who also serves on the Port Authority, suggested the committee be formed after North Mankato resident Jim Hughes requested an audit. His request came after it was reported that the Port Authority and city officials had not told the mayor, City Council and the public that Ray’s Market was months behind on its lease and property tax payments for a Port Authority-owned building.
Hughes, who was appointed to the committee, was the only member to vote in favor of the audit.
The Minnesota State Auditor’s Office turned down a request for guidance by the committee, saying it had to maintain its independence in case it was asked to audit the Port Authority.
During a meeting last month, the committee compiled a list of questions for auditors. It included eight examples of state statutes and three Port Authority bylaws that the committee wasn’t sure were being followed. It also included about a dozen general questions related to Port Authority’s compliance with laws and policies.
“The majority of questions you submitted to us either assume certain facts to be true or include your conclusion of what the facts indicate,” David Kenney, assistant legal counsel for the Auditor’s Office, said. “Since we may be asked to audit the North Mankato Port Authority, it is imperative that we maintain our independence and not speculate at this time as to compliance or noncompliance with state law, by-laws and policies.”
Kenney did say, in general, that auditors do consider the seriousness of the non-compliance issues, the number of transgressions and whether they were intentional when deciding what actions will be taken.
That response was a key reason North Mankato resident Dan Cline, who took part in the meeting via a conference call from California, made a motion against recommending the audit. It wasn’t likely auditors would do anything even if it did find the Port Authority wasn’t following state laws.
“I think that’s hogwash,” Cline said. “To me, there’s no accountability for the Port Authority. They can do anything they want.”
Bill Kozitza, the single Port Authority commissioner appointed to the committee, said he was confident that other commissioners would seriously consider the committee’s findings and recommendations.
“I think they will understand that this is a way we can improve ourselves,” Kozitza said.
The committee didn’t uncover anything that would justify paying for an audit, he added. And he doesn’t believe there is anything more to be discovered.
“This group has done as much or more than any outside agency would do,” he said.
The fifth committee member is Steve Mork, North Mankato’s finance director.
Posted by Nose for News on Jan. 15 2004,12:39 am
Does this sound familar?January 14th, 2004
Mankato group not following state law
Charter Commission has not met in three years
By Mathias Baden
Free Press Staff Writer
MANKATO — The Mankato Charter Commission didn’t follow the law.
The state requires groups that review charters, or constitutions, like Mankato’s to meet every year. “I don’t even know when was the last time they met,” City Manager Pat Hentges said. “We need to keep them active.”
A few years ago Judy Besemer, a justice of the peace and District 5 Court administrator, found a hole in the district court file on the Charter Commission, which began to oversee city operations in 1910 and recommends changes to the charter.
A charter commission can hear citizen challenges to the way the city is doing business, and can examine if the city is following its charter. It’s an independent body designed to keep city officials in check.
But apparently, checking on city officials hasn’t been a priority the last few years.
Even though the commission is required to meet each year and newly elected Chairwoman Malda Farnham swore the group had recently gotten together, the latest meeting on record — until the commission squeezed in the 2003 annual meeting last month — took place in June 2000.
“We didn’t intentionally not have those meetings,” City Attorney Eileen Wells said. “But we didn’t intentionally call one, because there was nothing to do. We’re not hiding anything. It’s really a non-issue.”
The state doesn’t penalize cities for commissions that don’t meet, so there is no “problem” with missing an annual meeting, Wells said.
“I don’t know that it’s breaking the law,” Wells said. “Typically, if you’re breaking the law, then there’s some consequences.”
Most of the commission’s functions are mundane. It hasn’t reworded the charter since 2000, City Clerk Cheryl Lindquist said.
Last month’s meeting consisted of listening to a description of the commission’s purpose, electing officers and setting the next meeting date for after the Minnesota Legislature ends. “It’s really not a dynamic committee,” Charter Commissioner Andy Johnson said.
But important changes to the charter come up about every 15 years, Johnson said.
The Charter Commission has made several changes to the charter including: mandating a seven-member City Council; setting assessment policies; and adding youth seats to city commissions. Its members even debated the possibility of merging Mankato and North Mankato into a single city.
Since the Charter Commission is independent of the city, the easiest way to ensure that it meets is for a citizen to propose a change to the charter. The commission must respond to proposals.
It can forward proposals to the City Council with recommendations.
If the council denies a recommendation, the commission can force an election on the issue. That seldom happens.
“The statutory requirement to meet every year probably flies in the face of logic,” said Bill Bassett, former city manager and commissioner. “You should meet when there’s a need to meet. If there isn’t an issue I wonder, why have the meeting?”
Sometimes, Wells added, “we meet annually just to have an annual meeting.”
By July 2003, more than half of the commissioners’ terms had expired. Neither Chief Judge Norbert Smith nor Mankato appointed new commissioners until last month.
Although the commission had enough active members to act on proposals, Besemer spent the last two years prodding Wells to turn in annual reports, or packets of meeting minutes, from the times the commission did meet.
“Nobody has cared a hoot about this darn file forever, it looks like,” Besemer said.
Wells told the commission last month she will turn in the commission’s annual report to Smith this year, but she hasn’t done that since 1991. “Many of the documents were never filed,” Besemer wrote in 2001 in a letter to the city attorney.
Several annual reports were still missing from the district court’s file when Besemer wrote a letter to Wells in October 2003, urging the Charter Commission to file appointments, written letters of acceptance and oaths of office for its members.
Wells insisted no meetings took place in 2001 or 2002.
Farnham said the group met, but she didn’t have the minutes. “I always throw them away — start fresh,” she said.
Charter Commission intended to oversee city government
What is a charter commission anyway?
To understand what a charter commission is, you must first know what is a charter city.
Mankato isn’t structured like most cities. Mankato follows a charter, somewhat of a constitution, rather than some state laws.
Mankato chose in 1910 to become a charter city and institute the commission to conduct independent reviews and recommend changes to the city’s governing document.
Charter cities are allowed to have City Councils like Mankato’s that are representative of different wards and have seven members, while statutory cities must have five-member councils.
The Charter Commission has made several changes to the charter, like:
• mandating a seven-member City Council;
• setting assessment policies;
• and adding youth seats to city commissions.
If a resident proposes a change to the charter, the Charter Commission must respond to the proposal. It can forward proposals to the City Council with recommendations.
If the council denies a recommendation, the commission can force an election on the issue.
— Mathias Baden
Posted by Ole1kanobe on Jan. 16 2004,1:02 am
Seems to be a common theme, at least in this part of the state.
Posted by jimhanson on Jan. 16 2004,10:59 am
It even crossed the border to Mason City! Is it MAD BOARD disease? While localized in this area, it seems to be spreading. Can you get a shot to prevent it, or is the cure similar to MAD COW--quarantine, and eradication? 
Posted by CWolff on Jan. 16 2004,3:26 pm
Nosefornews, you will have to take the Board to civil court by yourself for Open Meeting Law violations. Each violation is punishable by a $300.00 fine for each violation, and the fine has to be paid by the individual and not from public funds. If the Board has committed more than three violations, then the Judge will remove the Board members from office. You may be able to recover up to $13,000.00 in attorney fees if you win your case. State Statute, chapter 13D deals with the Open Meeting Law.
Posted by Montyman on Jan. 16 2004,6:31 pm
If I was on a Board, I'd make everything part of a 'consent agenda' and vote once on everything without allowing any non-Board input. Just think how cheap publishing the minutes would be.
Posted by minnow on Jan. 16 2004,6:39 pm
Why are you smiling?
Posted by Montyman on Jan. 16 2004,6:42 pm
Your avatar is.
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 17 2004,2:46 pm
Sounds way too familiar Ole1 and nose. Phoned in votes, a needed audit of the Port Authority, 4-1 votes, businesses in arrears of rent/lease payments and taxes owed on property owned by the Port Authority, city officials aware of the arrears and not informing the council, and questionable conduct in violating Minnesota State Statutes.
| Quote |
| It even crossed the border to Mason City! Is it MAD BOARD disease? While localized in this area, it seems to be spreading. |
Our only hope is that the state treats this as they would rabies. Distroy the infected "animal", cut out it's brain, and sent it to the state for testing.
Cwulff, here's the statutes: < 13D > Here's the ten page information briefing of the Minnesota House, revised August, 2003. < open meeting law >
Posted by Montyman on Jan. 17 2004,5:33 pm
The State of MN already has too much involvement at the local level.Same way with the Feds at the State level.
There is no such thing as States Rights or 'local rights' anywhere.
Posted by Nose for News on Jan. 19 2004,10:55 am
One man in Mankato is changing the way business is being done.We can also change things here.
Take control of our own destiny.
Remove incompetence.
webster: Incompetent 1:not legally qualified 2:inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose 3:lacking
the qualities needed for effective action b;unable to function properly
Port Authority - Decisions carry risk
Part 1 of 3
By Dan Nienaber
Free Press Staff Writer
NORTH MANKATO — Jim Hughes clearly remembers when he first started asking questions about the North Mankato Port Authority, its purpose and its powers.
Pat Christman
Jim Hughes of North Mankato has been a critic of the North Mankato Port Authority, questioning, among other things, whether it follows state laws when conducting business. A citizens committee he served on found there was a solid base to his questions.
It was around the time houses started disappearing from his Wheeler Avenue neighborhood.
The Port Authority was preparing the former Marigold Dairy site for a downtown hotel project between Wheeler and Belgrade avenues. Houses just down the street from Hughes’ home in the 200 block of Wheeler were being demolished or moved to make room for the new hotel.
“When houses start moving off your block, it’s natural to start asking the five W’s: who, what, when, why and where,” he said.
The Port Authority — whose seven members are appointed by the City Council and include two council members— controls a large amount of public money and property. It has more than $16 million in assets, including the library, police annex and hilltop fire station buildings it leases to the city. It also owns 52 acres of prime development land, worth more than $2 million, in its industrial park.
A citizens committee formed to review Port Authority activities recently found the North Mankato body was “not in compliance” with several state statutes and many of its own bylaws. The committee also made 13 recommendations on how to improve its operation.
A requirement that the Port Authority hold public hearings before selling land was the most serious example of noncompliance with state statutes. It already has changed its practices to comply.
Taxpayers at risk
Taxpayers are responsible for millions of dollars the Port Authority has borrowed in their name, meaning taxpayers will pay if the Port Authority fails its obligations.
The possibility of having to use property-tax money to pay for Port Authority mistakes increased last year. Two failed projects, including the one in Hughes’ neighborhood, have left the Port Authority with big payments to make.
The Port Authority is now paying for more than $700,000 in property improvements made for a hotel that was never built and nearly $800,000 it owes for a grocery building it no longer owns. The total payoff for both bonds is about $4.8 million over 15 to 20 years.
That adds up to well over $480 for every man, woman and child in the city of just more than 10,000 people.
If all of the money had to be paid back with additional property taxes, the North Mankato tax levy would go up by about 7 percent. Taxes on a $150,000 home in North Mankato could go up about $25 per year.
Port Authority officials say that’s unlikely and say a developer has expressed interest in the hotel site.
They also point to successful projects in the Port Authority’s industrial park, which have created jobs and garnered hundreds of thousands of dollars in property taxes. The Port Authority has also helped other businesses with its revolving-loan fund.
Port Authority officials say it’s necessary to take some risks in the effort to promote economic development.
At least one development expert says such risks can be mitigated and aren’t a necessity.
Craig Waldron, Oakdale city administrator, has handled numerous economic development deals for his city and was the featured speaker at a forum in North Mankato last fall.
Waldron said he wouldn’t get Oakdale taxpayers into a similar situation. He would have required a letter of credit to guarantee one or two years of payments for each of the projects. And he would have structured the deals so the developers would be required to pay if the taxes or income wasn’t there to make bond payments.
Another economic development expert, Jack Geller at the Center for Rural Policy and Development in St. Peter, says North Mankato shouldn’t have been in retail trade, such as a grocery business, at all.
“Why would you use public dollars to favor one business over another business?” Geller said. “I don’t understand the logic in that.”
Asking tough questions
But Hughes said he’s had a hard time getting his questions answered about successful projects as well as the hotel project. That led Hughes to ask the North Mankato City Council to request a state audit of its economic development arm.
The audit wasn’t approved, but the council did form a committee, of which Hughes was a member, to take a closer look at Port Authority records and make an audit recommendation. Despite finding several examples where the Port Authority doesn’t abide by state statutes regulating its activities or its own bylaws, the committee voted against recommending an audit.
Hughes was the only person on the five-member committee to vote in favor of an audit.
“Every dollar they spend, every dollar they accrue is public money,” Hughes said.
“And they have the authority to use it because they’re the most legislatively powerful economic development unit in the state.
“But it’s not what they’re doing, it’s are they doing it in accordance with the law?”
Hughes found there wasn’t much state officials could do about a lack of compliance. The laws include few provisions for enforcement and state officials want to avoid influencing local development decisions.
State officials say they have five staff members to oversee grants to some 800 cities in Minnesota. The public, officials said, needs to help them make sure the money is being spent for the intended purposes.
Posted by Nose for News on Jan. 28 2004,11:56 am
Update. We can learn from this. Just ask the right questions.It would be interesting to see Albert Lea's projects and $$$ from the last 15 years?
Paul Moe, director of business finance for Minnesota DEED is in charge of issuing the grants and overseeing the money as it's loaned out by the Port Authoritys.
His staff oversees the economic development subsidies issued by more than 800 cities in Minnesota. < http://www.deed.state.mn.us/ >
January 20th, 2004
'Public money' on the line
By Dan Nienaber
Free Press Staff Writer
NORTH MANKATO — When Bob Knutson, one of the North Mankato Port Authority's seven members, stood before a crowd of North Mankato residents at a City Council meeting and said no taxpayer dollars were going to the Port Authority, some North Mankato residents disagreed.
Wayne Comstock said it reminded him of a "spin zone."
Of course, Knutson never said Port Authority money isn't "public money." But, during comments he made at a North Mankato City Council meeting in September, Knutson did say - over and over - that Port Authority dollars are not "taxpayer dollars."
Bill Schindle, a North Mankato councilman who also serves on the Port Authority, used the same language moments later when he confronted Comstock about his comments.
"Wayne, I'm telling you, it was said that tax dollars are going into these projects and Mr. Knutson stood up and explained that they're not," Schindle said.
Minnesota lawmakers have put it in writing. "Port Authority money is public money," says statute 469.051, subdivision 7.
More importantly, those same statutes also give port authorities the ability to have cities levy taxes for them. "A city shall, at the request of the port authority, levy a tax in any year for the benefit of the port authority," says statute 469.053, subdivision 4.
During its 15 years of existence, the Port Authority has been involved in 42 economic development projects, Knutson told the council.
"During that period of time, we have never ever used taxpayer dollars," he said. "And we don't anticipate using taxpayer dollars in the future."
In his first reference to taxpayer dollars, Knutson referred specifically to property taxes. He later said that he meant local property taxes in all of his references to "taxpayer dollars."
And it's only partially true the Port Authority doesn't make direct use of money raised through property taxes for its projects.
It has used city employees and city equipment for its projects, including its controversial hotel and grocery developments. City employees are paid and city equipment is bought with funds raised through property taxes.
It would be difficult for the city to keep track of employee time and other city expenses used for the Port Authority projects or administration, said North Mankato Finance Director Steve Mork.
How the Port Authority affects you
• North Mankato taxpayers would be legally bound to pay some if not many of the Port Authority’s bills should the Port Authority not be able to pay them. Those bills total about $4.8 million right now, a sum equal to 141 percent of the 2004 North Mankato tax levy (the amount raised through taxes). The bills can be paid over a 15- to 20-year period.
• A levy increase to pay the bills of the Port Authority, if needed, would increase taxes by about $25 per year on a $150,000 home in North Mankato, according to a Free Press analysis.
• Two failed projects make the risk of paying off those bills higher this year, and a plan to pay those bills carries risks of its own. The Port Authority would have to sell 50 acres of development land for an average of $40,000 an acre during the next five to 15 years to pay for these bills.
• The Port Authority has sold 50 acres of land at about $30,000 per acre during the past several years.
• Although the Port Authority has garnered nearly $1 million in state and federal funds, the state does not actively monitor how the money has been spent and has little enforcement power to make sure the money is spent according to the law.
• A citizens committee found seven examples where the Port Authority was not in compliance with state statutes and was not following several of its own bylaws.
• State law says cities “shall at the request of the port authority, levy a tax in any year for the benefit of the port authority.”
Posted by Liberal on Feb. 01 2004,4:00 pm
Port Authority money is public money," says statute 469.051, subdivision 7 and since it is public money the Port Authority is a public board and every public board is bound by the Minnesota open meeting law. Think about how stupid this is, this is a public board thinking they can simply convene under a different name and somehow they will not be bound by the open meeting law as the port authority board anymore.You would think after running the puppet show at city hall for nearly 30 years Paul would know the law. If you have a quorum of PA board members anywhere except the PA meeting then you are in violation of the open meeting law no matter what you talk about. Having meetings with less than a quorum may even be a violation of the law if you have serial meetings and discuss any PA business.
Maybe the Tribune can look into this. If our editor needs any advice on what to do she should just call the Globe Gazette editor.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 01 2004,4:54 pm
From the managing editor of the Tribune, today | Quote |
| I encourage everyone who reads The Tribune to take a look at their lives and the people they know and say: I'm going to let the newspaper know about this activity or that person from my own little world. |
| Quote |
| How newspapers accomplish that when faced with some of the realities of the business is where the struggle comes. A limited number of staff is perhaps the greatest challenge. Realistically, it is impossible for six people to cover every corner, every event, every meeting conducted in a town the size of Albert Lea. With a population of roughly 18,300 people, that means each reporter would have to cover the doings of 3,050 people, whose various activities could keep those reporters from sleeping - ever. |
Sure beats Dylan's approach--sending a reporter to "hang around the courthouse" in a trenchcoat!
("Old Tribune sarcasm!)