Glenn Kruse has submitted his resignation to the boards of both the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment.
Kruse submitted his resignation in the afternoon of Monday, Feb. 1.
“We thank him for his years of service,” said county commissioner Steve Schuldt.
No reason was given to the board for his resignation. However, the re-appointment to the planning commission seat became a contentious one in recent weeks.
On a 3-2 split vote, the county board voted to appoint Mr. Kruse to the commission.
This unleashed a flurry of attacks on the long-time official, who by all accounts served admirably in his time on the seat.
In recent weeks following several discussions, it came to light that the county has a rule in place that states “no more than one (1) voting member of the commission shall be an officer or employee of the county.”
Given that Mr. Kruse also serves as a drop site supervisor, commissioner Justin Zmyewski felt that the county was in violation on this matter as commissioner Dana Kjome who also serves on the planning commission would fill the role as that one “officer.”
It is not known if this is the reason that Mr. Kruse stepped away from the boards that he has served on as board chairman Judy Storlie stated he simply submitted his resignation with no reason stated.
As we had noted in December:
In 2013, the Houston County Board voted that anyone who serves three consecutive 3-year term on the planning and zoning board must sit out for one term at the end of that service.
In short: term limits.
Now the move by three Houston County board members to ignore those limits in re-appointing a board member to his fourth consecutive term is receiving sharp criticism in the largely rural county in Minnesota's southeastern corner.
Many critics believe the action illustrates a pro-frac sand mining bias on a county board that flouts its own rules.
Perhaps Kruse's departure, for whatever reason, will help the dust settle in southeast Minnesota.
Map: Where Houston County's at.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
. . . Olmsted County Commissioner Ken Brown said it appears likely that public work on the project will cease, and it will be up to North American High Speed Rail to make high-speed rail between Rochester and the Twin Cities a reality.
"It's not going to happen any other way. This will not be a public project. Can't afford it. Nobody's got the money," he said.
Brown added that he believes the money spent so far on environmental analysis was worthwhile. He said that work helped raise the visibility of the project, helping to attract the interest of the private sector.
He added, "That work won't be wasted. It won't disappear. It will be used by the group that takes it over and runs with it."
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) today announced the suspension of its work on the proposed high-speed rail line project, Zip Rail, between the Twin Cities metropolitan area and Rochester, Minn., pending action by the Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority next week.
MnDOT also announced today that it has issued permits to the North American High Speed Rail company which will begin a feasibility study in the near future for a high speed rail line in southeastern Minnesota.
Suspending work on Zip Rail project Zip Rail was initiated as a partnership between MnDOT and Olmsted County to explore the feasibility of a high-speed rail connection that would serve anticipated travel demand between the state’s two largest economies. . . .
North American High Speed Rail exploring privately-developed rail line North American High Speed Rail – a private company – has expressed interest in building high-speed rail between the Twin Cities and Rochester using private funds. MnDOT announced today that it has approved permits for the company to begin studying plans for a future high speed rail line in southeastern Minnesota.
The NAHSR proposal would not require public funds to move forward. However, MnDOT officials noted that any high-speed rail project that is developed will need to follow federal and state regulations and provide public participation opportunities during development
The NAHSR project is initially much different than the proposed Zip Rail plan, which MnDOT suspended its work on this week. NAHSR will further define the proposed project’s potential benefits to the region and state as it conducts its own feasibility study.
So earlier planning work paid by the public will and won't be handed over to private hands. We'll keep an eye out, if indeed that can still be done.
William Hume: Bus Rapid Transit is a better idea
Another informed suggestion emerged Wednesday in a letter to the editor of the Zumbrota News-Record from William Hume, retired infrastructure land surveyor/civil engineer writes about transit issues nationally.
Zumbrota would become a blast-zone for eminent domain should the monster named “ZIP” ever come to life! The creature’s girth is at least a 100-ft width of right-of-way slashing its tail all up and down Hwy 52. Private property along the highway supporting businesses, farms, and roadside would be consumed.
ZIP would be built to last. The best approach to the monster is stopping it dead in its tracks, as it emerges, a complete derailment.
Minnesota’s current high-speed rail proposal, the so-called ZIP Rail is planned as a future constructed transit just to bring workers from the Twin Cities to Rochester with a TC station, Rochester station and nothing mentioned in between, not Zumbrota.
Other vibrant cities along 52 in between are completely left out. This is a very bad idea, a ridiculous plan that violates all practicality regarding the function of inter-city high-speed rail. Efficient passenger rail design is all about connectivity, gathering many stops, cities, towns, and villages. General consensus with high-speed rail designers is a route 300 to 500 miles in length serving everyone along the way. That distance would operate with urban American efficiency.
ZIP at about 80 to 90 miles long does not qualify.
ZIP is a classic special interest project, thought up by Destination Medical Center (DMC) Mayo, and Rochester business visionaries. Joining the gang are progressive liberals from the state capital, looking for more costume jewelry with a massive price to hang on taxpayers.
In my opinion Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), would stop in Zumbrota on a 24-hour schedule, adding flexibility for citizens of Zumbrota working in TC or Rochester and all stops in between. New high-tech bus coaches with wi-fi, super comfortable body contoured seats, pull down lap top trays and even multi-media screens on the seat backs...Wow a rider wouldn’t want to get off it’s so comfortable.
Let's build it! BRT from several stations in the TC south suburbs and several more in Rochester, with each city in between served with new completely weather sealed climate controlled solar powered glass and steel stations located on new exit ramps off of 52 with large park-and-ride vehicle lots.
BRT on this route serves everybody. Costs to build the upgrades for Hwy 52 include new road overpass cloverleaf ramps and the elimination of stop light intersections for a very safe new Hwy 52. Zumbrota could be the stop with a fantastic road spanning a Hwy 52 overhead travel stop elevated with fuel, food and trip-related retail stores. That would be at least 500 new jobs for Zumbrota. Throw in the bus fleet, Hwy 52 express lane upgrades, and new lighting and safety features for 100 miles of America’s newest and most innovative road-tech for about one and a half billion.
The monster ZIP would cost approximately 15 billion dollars! Genuine high-speed rail with world-class design features supporting at least 186-mph average speeds, that is the qualifying time to be accepted in the high-speed rail race!
ZIP is an astronomically expensive transit system proposal, constructed, and operated by the state. A rail only purpose high-speed rail bridge over the Minnesota river would be about $2 billion just itself. Add in full route underground intrusion detection cables and weather fencing, a full distance access and service road for the double-track run, and massive landform excavation and bridging, as zero-flat grade is necessary. Every road, bike and walkpath has to have its own underpass or bridge over. No pedestrian, vehicle or anything can intrude on its right-of-way. Overhead electric cantenary and track de-icing for Minnesota would create this cost of 15 billion and then hundreds of millions a year in operating funds. Minnesota taxpayers pay every day for this ZIP. There would be no profit from the fare box tickets, as this is a socialized state transit system. It is a massive money loser just like TC light-rail and the NorthStar.
Bus Rapid Transit looks good for all, and huge for Zumbrota.
We look forward to the Twin Cities media continuing to report that it's just yokel NIMBYs opposing the Zip Rail or private Velos line, rather than citizens who've looked carefully over the plans--and who might even offer potential reasonable and inclusive alternatives for transit to Rochester.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
A friend forwarded Bluestem a press release from the Minnesota Department of Transportation announcing the release of the Alternatives Analysis report on the part of the Zip Rail partners, but a news brief published last week in the Red Wing Republican Eagle has us wondering if the document release will matter.
Report: Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authoritytransferring grant to private sector
Responding to a request by Goodhue County Commissioner Dan Rechtzigel for an update on Zip Rail, Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority replied it is in the process of closing out a grant for the project and transferring it to the private sector, Goodhue County Administrator Scott Arneson said at Tuesday’s Goodhue County Board meeting.
Olmsted County partnered with Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Authority to evaluate the possibility of a high-speed passenger line from the Twin Cities to Rochester. Goodhue County residents and government representatives have been included in committees for the controversial project that opponents say would be costly and unnecessary.
“One thing to remember is once it goes to the private sector, these Technical Advisory and Citizen Advisory committees, they won’t have to have those,” Goodhue County Commissioner Brad Anderson said.
The Republican Eagle article documents a nice example of transfer of work done on the public's dime to a private entity which insists it will never require public funding, then closing down any public oversight. We're sure the hicksters will appreciate both the pelf and the loss of transparency, should eminent domain condemnation hearings ever commence or the ever-evolving management of the North American High-Speed Rail Group come hat-in-hand to the state legislature.
Here's the press release and the report. Another friend has sent us billing documents and a February 2015 draft of the report (someone's time dragged on there) obtained via the data practices request process, and we'll have more after we get a chance to assess the information therein.
In the meantime, enjoy your potholes, drivers, and your shelterless bus stops, inner city commuter friends.
MNDOT announces release of report
The press release:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation today announced that an Alternatives Analysis report for the Zip Rail project has been released and is available to the public.
The analysis is a step in the environment review for the project and identifies eight alternatives for a proposed high-speed rail line between the Twin Cities metropolitan area and Rochester, Minn.
The report was developed in collaboration with the Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority and the Federal Railroad Administration, and documents the passenger rail corridor alternatives between Rochester and the Twin Cities.
The study area is located in the counties of Dakota, Dodge, Goodhue, Hennepin, Olmsted, Ramsey and Rice.
Photo: The Snowpiercer, another passenger rail project.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Olmsted County rail consultant Chuck Michael said he was not paid by the private company seeking to build a high-speed rail line from Rochester to the Twin Cities.
Michael sent an email to the Post-Bulletin following an article published that reported Michael did some consulting work for North American High Speed Rail Group last year. In the email, Michael wrote, "you should be interested to know that my total compensation from NAHSR was $0."
In an interview, Michael said he does a lot of voluntary, pro bono work and didn't think about mentioning this was one of those cases. . . .
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
One of the legislative architects of the plan to re-open the facility, state representative Tim Miller, R-Prinsburg, shared and responded to the Don Davis article on his Facebook page:
Fact: the state needs more prison space. Fact: Appleton prison has adequate facilities. Fact: utilizing the prison would bring 200-600 well paying union jobs to a county with the second highest unemployment rate in the state. Fact: there is broad bipartisan support in the legislature. [emphasis added]
And yet it appears the Governor and public unions are fighting against this plan. Incredible. I'm absolutely stunned.
Facts about Swift County unemployment
While Miller asserts as fact the notion that leasing the privately-owned prison would bring jobs to "acounty with the second highest unemployment rate in the state," data available through a mapping tool at the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggest that Swift County is nothing of the sort. (Select Minnesota on the pulldown menu and November 2015 here).
As one can see from the legend, other counties--especially in the northern part of the state, have higher rates. Koochiching County's rate is the highest at 8.8 percent:
Here are all the counties with a higher unemployment rate than Swift County in November 2015, according to results obtained via the BLS county unemployment mapping tool, in alphabetical order (we number them for counting purposes only):
Aitkin County 5.6
Carlton County 4.4
Cass County 6.0
Clearwater Co 7.7
Crow Wing Co 4.9
Hubbard County 5.8
Itasca County 7.2
Kanabec County 5.2
LOTW County 4.7
Mahnomen Co 4.5
Marshall Co 5.4
Mille Lacs Co 4.7
Morrison Co 4.7
Pine County 4.4
Red Lake Co 5.1
Saint Louis Co 4.9
Wadena County 5.0
That puts Swift County at number 18 statewide--and given the cluster of high unemployment in the Northeastern corner of the state, the facts make us wonder why Representative Miller wasn't out beating a loud drum for a special session for laid-off steelworkers or other state efforts to relieve these seventeen counties ahead in the misery queue.
Granted, Swift County has the highest unemployment rate in Representative Miller's district--but we have to ask why an unemployment rate should trump other solutions to the state's increased number of inmates. The Davis article notes that ">Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission last month approved a plan to reduce sentences for many drug offenders, which would reduce pressure on packed prisons[,]" while the ISAIAH MN organizer praised an investment in recovery beds.
Perhaps Miller can share where he found his "facts" --and notion that the only solution for prison populations is more prison space. Meanwhile, will he be suggesting government spending to solve unemployment issues in all those other unfortunate counties?
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Appeals for criminal justice reform, rather than increasing the number of prison beds in Minnesota have taken root in the Dayton administration. Forum Communications political reporter Don Davis writes in Dayton rejects plan to reopen Appleton prison:
Gov. Mark Dayton will not ask legislators to fix a prison overcrowding problem by borrowing state money to reopen a west-central Minnesota private prison or to expand existing state prisons like his corrections commissioner has suggested, he said Thursday. . . .
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission last month approved a plan to reduce sentences for many drug offenders, which would reduce pressure on packed prisons. The prison task force has discussed other sentence reductions, too, some of which may take legislative action.
Update: Critics of the effort to reopen the private prison or to expand public prison beds praised the effort. Witness ISAIAHMN organizer Lars Negstad's tweet:
Glad to see @GovMarkDayton Bonding bill doesn't include major expansion of state prisons & invests in recovery beds. #mnleg#NoMorePrisons
Nonetheless, Swift County and its lobbyists will persist, Davis reports:
Swift County and the city of Appleton will continue to work to promote the advantages of the Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton, according to Swift County Administrator Mike Pogge-Weaver.
“We’re certainly pleased that expanding Rush City or any other facility is not being considered by the State of Minnesota, especially considering there is a vacant and ready to be occupied building here in Swift County,’’ said Pogge-Weaver Thursday when informed of the governor’s statements.
Pogge-Weaver and other members of the local task force will be in St. Paul on Friday for meeting of the prison population task force convened by the Legislature. They will continue to make their point that if the state needs more prison space, the Appleton facility remains the most logical answer.
Photo: The CCA private prison in Appleton, West Central Tribune file photo.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Although state representative Carly Melin's retirement press release was clear about leaving "public life" at the end of her term in the legislature, that hasn't stopped speculation about what office she might seek next.
Although I'll exit public life when my term expires, I will always have a passion for serving the public and plan to continue doing so through other community involvement. For now, I look forward to focusing on my legal career on the Iron Range and spending more time with my family.”
State Rep. Carly Melin of Hibbing, who became the first Iron Range woman elected to the Legislature in two decades, announced Thursday that she won’t seek re-election this year.
Melin, 30, said she wants to spend more time developing her legal career and her young family — with one toddler, Leonard, in diapers and another child on the way.
. . .“It’s a long distance to try to handle a family in Hibbing and a job in St. Paul. It’s a problem for a lot of us in Greater Minnesota,’’ Melin told the News Tribune Thursday. “And I want to develop my career outside the Legislature.’’
Melin, who represents District 6B, is an attorney for the Prebich law firm in Hibbing.
“This is going to be my sixth session coming up, which is actually about average for the House,’’ Melin noted, but hinted she may not be done with public service.
“I’m stepping out for now. But I’m still pretty young and I’m not ruling out coming back into public office some day,” she said. “It has been a privilege to serve in the Legislature and a true honor to represent the citizens of my district at the Capitol.’’
If she's going to run, however, she'd have to run this year--or wait four years, since the county commissioner gigs last four years. We suspect the popular Ranger would have no problem getting elected to the seat.
It’s the Minnesota Legislature’s version of brain drain. A number of high-profile and influential legislators are trading the lofty policy debates, high-stakes budgeting, demanding schedule and chaotic politics of the Legislature for the comparatively staid and decidedly unglamorous world of county government.
In addition to Holberg, Rep. Mike Beard, R-Shakopee, will run for a commissioner’s seat in Scott County. Five former legislators also are running for county board posts — four DFLers and one Republican in both the metro area and greater Minnesota. Former legislators fill seats on a number of other county boards including in Ramsey, Carver and Olmsted counties. . . .
The county jobs might look less powerful and prestigious, more low profile. But a handful of boards governing the state’s largest counties dangle paychecks that dwarf those of the average legislator.
Rank-and-file Minnesota legislators earn $31,141 a year, plus an expense per diem, for a job that’s officially considered part time. But for up to half the year, the legislative calendar demands long hours, late nights, weekend meetings and frequent round trips between St. Paul and home. Political tensions can run high, media scrutiny can be intense and the fundraising for the next election endless.
Meanwhile, commissioners in 15 of Minnesota’s 87 counties earn more than their legislative counterparts — a few up to double and in Hennepin County near triple. With the higher pay comes regularly scheduled meetings, smaller budgets, more clear-cut issues and less partisan rhetoric. . . .
Tom Rukavina, a fiery Iron Range DFLer, stepped down in 2012 after a quarter-century in the House. He is now running for the St. Louis County Board. If elected, he’ll nearly double his former legislative salary and will keep his legislative pension.
Rukavina joked that “I got tired of driving back and forth to the Cities.” . . .
Commissioners can hold jobs in addition to that of commissioner, and so Melin would be able to practice law as well.
We'll see if our young friend's hunch plays out. While we were critical of the restrictive medical cannabis law she authored, as well as her anti-environmental record, her work for workplace equity for women and other measures leave a sound legacy in St. Paul.
Photo:Rep. Melin campaigning in Nashwauk parade with Governor Mark Dayton and Congressman Rick Nolan in 2014, only weeks after giving birth to her son Leonard. She's be perfectly capable of winning a county board seat while caring for her newborn. Via Facebook.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
The editorial board of the Rochester Post Bulletin looked at the questions that the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities raised in Thursday's editorial, Our View: State needs to unite behind LGA push, agreeing with Le Sueur Mayor Robert Broeder's observation that we are all one state.
Read the piece at the Post Bulletin. It concludes with some sharp words for Drazkowski's anti-metro frame:
While it would be easy for some to agree to the us-versus-them stance, Broeder notes it's being taken on what could be unstable ground. He notes cutting the funds for the three cities does nothing for Greater Minnesota and could jeopardize future funding. "With the political support there is in Minneapolis and St. Paul, I think it's pretty easy to say it would be the beginning of the end to this program that is so vital to so many of our cities," the Le Sueur mayor said.
While that might be a bit exaggerated, it does raise the possibility of repercussions. What would be next? A complete change in how LGA is determined? A revamp of the formula created in 2013, which bases funding on need rather than population, could benefit cities such as Rochester, which is low on the per-capita scale, but it also could jeopardize funds for smaller communities, such as Drazkowski's hometown of Mazeppa, which was certified to receive $229 per capita in 2014, $36 per capita more than Minneapolis, according to the Minnesota House website.
While the worst-case scenario is unlikely, there doesn't appear to be any winners in LGA as it's playing out with nearly two months left until the legislative session starts. Pitting rural interest against metro interests may have played well leading up to the 2014 election that saw a shift in the House, but it doesn't appear to be as successful providing for the needs of the state as a whole.
We'd urge both sides on the issue to put aside geographical or political concerns and look at what LGA legislation does for the state as a whole. We need to find ways to come together, rather than create divisions. We all live here. Those of us in rural areas need cities to provide a variety of needs, and those of us in cities would be unable to survive without work done in rural Minnesota.
Life in our state is a cooperative venture. We need to make sure it works for everyone involved.
It's a good starting ground.
Photo: Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa. Winter isn't coming. It's here.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Mayors and other elected officials from outstate Minnesota are pressuring House Republicans to support increased state spending on government aid to cities and towns, hoping to capitalize on the increased importance of rural voters to the GOP’s power at the Capitol.
“I think there is a golden opportunity to help build a bit of progress in terms of this needed, helpful asset to rural Minnesota,” Robert Broeder, mayor of Le Sueur and president of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, said Tuesday in a conference call with journalists and local leaders. Broeder charged that House Republicans last year “insisted on undermining LGA,” the acronym for the state’s local government aid program.
Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, is the House GOP’s lead on property taxes. He said House Republicans would not get behind any local government aid increases this year.
“Last year we fully funded the government, in all categories, for the next two years,” Drazkowski said. “Our effort going forward is going to be to provide the relief to overtaxed Minnesotans that is needed to get us up and moving again.”
Minnesota House Republicans came under fire Tuesday from the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities for advocating a plan that Coalition officials said would ultimately gut the Local Government Aid program.
The City of Detroit Lakes received $788,000 in LGA funds from the state last year, money it used for police, parks, streets and government operations in general.
If that money were to disappear overnight, it would take a 20 percent city levy hike to replace it.
“I was extremely disappointed that our friends in the House on the Republican side continued to undermine LGA by insisting on extreme cuts to Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth,” said Le Sueur Mayor and CGMC President Robert Broeder.
Although Republican leadership characterized the proposed cuts as mild, it would have meant a 44 percent cut for Minneapolis, a 48 percent cut for St. Paul, and a stunning 68 percent cut for Duluth.
“That is a big chunk to take out of any city budget,” said Bradley Peterson, a senior lobbyist for the Coalition.
“Duluth would have had to lay off half their city employees – that should not be characterized as a ‘slight cut,’” he added.
He faulted House Property Tax Chair Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) for implying that LGA funds cut from the bigger cities would be redistributed to smaller cities – none of that money would be used to beef up LGA anywhere, Peterson said.
About that implication
Had Drazkowski implied that LGA funds cut from the bigger cities would be redistributed to smaller cities? A December 3, 2015, Drazkowski column in the Grand Forks Herald, Unwinding Minnesota Democrats' property tax political spin, begins:
I'd like to respond to the propaganda written recently by State Rep. Paul Marquart, DFL-Dilworth ("Property taxes betray rural Minnesota," Viewpoint, Page A4, Nov. 28).
Not only did Marquart unnecessarily bash Herald readers' local lawmaker—State Rep. Deb Kiel, R-Crookston—but also he also managed to disgustingly distort the truth in hopes of scoring political points.
In his attempt to rewrite history and gloss over his past legislative sins, Marquart claims Local Government Aid is not a Minnesota House priority. The fact is, House Republicans such as Kiel want more of that money sent to communities that truly need it—Greater Minnesota communities.
Last session, we proposed that Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth get an LGA reduction—not rural Minnesota cities. These are three major cities that, due to high populations, have the needed tax base to support themselves.
Kiel understands that LGA should be reserved for towns in Greater Minnesota that need the funds for critical services—not for major metropolitan cities that want to spend their money on nice-to-haves like street cars and light rail.
Draz goes on talk about property tax relief, but it's buried down in the article. A casual reader might indeed conclude that the House Republicans would have "more of that money sent to communities that truly need it—Greater Minnesota communities."
But now Condon reports in the Strib: "He [Drazkowski] said House Republicans would not get behind any local government aid increases this year."
We found additional letters and columns about Local Government Aid from Drazkowski that appeared before the public in other Greater Minnesota papers. Judge for yourself whether readers might infer that he was claiming that taking aid from the Twin Cities and Duluth brought more LGA to Greater Minnesota.
"Despite what Marquart says, Local Government Aid actually increased when compared to the previous year, while legislation I wrote made a slight LGA reduction in the bloated city budgets of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth."
"Despite what Marquart says, Local Government Aid actually increased when compared to the previous year, while legislation I wrote made a slight LGA reduction in the bloated city budgets of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth."
I would like to respond to the propaganda written recently by State Representative Paul Marquart. Not only did he unnecessarily bash your local lawmaker, State Representative Jeff Backer, but he also managed to disgustingly distort the truth in hopes of scoring political points.
In his attempt to rewrite history and gloss over his past legislative sins, Marquart claims Local Government Aid is not a Minnesota House priority. The fact is, House Republicans like Rep. Backer want more of that money sent to communities that truly need it – Greater Minnesota communities.
Last session, we proposed that Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth receive an LGA reduction – not rural Minnesota cities. These are three major cities that, due to high populations, have the needed tax base to support themselves.
Rep. Backer understands that LGA should be reserved for towns in Greater Minnesota who need the funds for critical services – not for major metropolitan cities that want to spend their money on nice-to-haves like street cars and light rail. . . .
Photo: Minnesota state representative Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
In 2013, the Houston County Board voted that anyone who serves three consecutive 3-year term on the planning and zoning board must sit out for one term at the end of that service.
In short: term limits.
Now the move by three Houston County board members to ignore those limits in re-appointing a board member to his fourth consecutive term is receiving sharp criticism in the largely rural county in Minnesota's southeastern corner.
Many critics believe the action illustrates a pro-frac sand mining bias on a county board that flouts its own rules.
For too long, (three of) our county commissioners have operated to serve what appears to be “the good ‘ol boy” network of friends, family and special interests.
They have used their positions seemingly to govern for the few and not for the best interest of their constituents, the many.
As 92 percent of you came before them regarding your opposition to the Frac Sand mining, they listened to the outcry, but then did an about face and came down on the side of their own interest, and refused to ban frac sand mining in the county.
They continue to do all they can to protect this decision, this time by circumventing their own rule and allowing Glenn Kruse to remain on the planning commission even though in 2013 they voted that anyone who serves three consecutive 3-year terms, as Kruse has; must get off of the planning and zoning board for one term.
That rule was put in to place, of course, given the possibility that it might be a struggle to find someone to serve.
Commissioners Judy Storlie, Steve Schuldt and Teresa Walter, however, used the loop hole to ensure that the planning and zoning board not have to be represented by a diverse board of voices.
Seven individuals brought their names forward to serve on the P&Z board. There was no struggle to find someone to serve. Several highly qualified individuals were among the pool of applicants. Not all, however, agree with the latest recommendations being made to the county board by the planning commission. Therefore, not all agreed with the position of commissioners Walter, Schuldt and Storlie.
Unbeknownst to Dana Kjome who is the county board’s representative on the P&Z board, interviews were held by Storlie, Schuldt and county attorney Sam Jandt.
The commissioners then voted to reappoint a member who had served three consecutive three year terms and by their own 2013 motion should have had to remain off the P&Z board for one term.
For too often the three commissioners have taken the view point that they only want to listen to one side of an issue and not allow the other side to be heard.
They have scaled the public comment portion of their regular meetings to once per month because a frustrated constituency had come to them week after week after week after week hoping that the commissioners might actually hear them and at the very least acknowledge their concerns.
Instead the public comment period is now one meeting per month. What had been eight whole minutes (said facetiously) to have their voices heard was changed to three minutes once-per month so that the commissioners don’t need to be bothered with the trivial concerns of the voters they are supposed to represent.
And now the planning and zoning board were afforded the same luxuries.
The rules were bent so that the board members would not have to be bothered with a varied opinion.
The same narrative will continue to come from the planning and zoning board. Diverse and varied opinions will not be heard and therefore the commissioners can continue to pass, by a 3-2 margin, the planning and zoning rules that are brought forward by the board month after month.
They can continue to only have to “listen” (again I’m being facetious) to an opinion that differs from theirs just once per month, for three minutes each speaker.
When our democracy works, it works best when two sides of an issue come together to find common ground and all voices are heard and considered.
These commissioners continue to use the seats upon which they sit to forward their own narratives and agendas.
When a constituent, and coincidently someone who threw his name into the ring to be considered for the planning commission seat, asked Steve Schuldt “what do you want us to do just bend over and “take it?”
His reply was: “I guess you’ll just have to take it.”
That’s a fairly unprofessional response from a commissioner whose role should be to represent the best interests of the entire county.
It is my job to report on our leaders activities and decisions as accurately and balanced as possible. That in turn allows county residents to determine if the decisions they are making and the actions they approve are in those citizens’ best interests.
If they are not, then the constituents can decide if our current leaders should be removed so someone who will govern for the people, of the people and by the people can be put in their place.
Week after week, decision after decision it is apparent that the three commissioners are only governing for the few and not for the best interest of the citizens of this county.
We should all do everything within our power to see that this trend is stopped in November, 2016.
I guess, if voters agree, commissioner Schuldt and Storlie– you’ll just have to take it
That's fairly strong stuff. Readers and citizens are echoing the sentiments in the letters section with commentary sporting headlines like No matter how bad you think it is, it is worse:
. . .Just two years ago the County Board voted unanimously to have term limits for the Planning Commission. Three terms of three years each was to be the limit and then a person would have to sit out an entire term before being able to serve again. At the Dec. 22nd meeting these three commissioners voted to reinstall Glenn Kruse for a 6th term.
Why did this happen when there were five other highly qualified candidates to choose from, one of them an attorney. There are two reasons. 1. Glenn Kruse is in favor of frac sand mining. 2. Glenn Kruse has a long history of enabling and covering up the lack of enforcement of the Ordinances in this County. . .
suspended for five days last year (two days were dropped if he completed some actions) because a long investigation found he had retaliated against frac-sand opponents by trying to use zoning rules against them, shared confidential information with others and gave special treatment by advocating in behalf of others.
Photo: In a pit and digging deeper; or a mine in Wisconsin.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
The North American High Speed Rail Group may never have operated any train more serious than a Lionel model, but they certain can make their talking points move fast.
. . .The privately held firm based in Bloomington says it has backing from undisclosed U.S. and Chinese investors and expects to raise $4.2 billion for the project. Once it receives a permit from MnDOT early next year, the North American High-Speed Rail group will have 120 days to complete its pre-development study.
"Right now, it's all still just an idea on paper and the group needs to study the project's viability and cost before moving forward," Meadley said. "It's not that we're trying to do things behind the scenes. We don't have any rights yet. So, there really isn't anything secret going on. We're trying to figure out how, we haven't even really started the process."
The proposals are entirely independent of each other but state and other officials are interested in having a private developer complete the project at no expense to the public, said MnDOT Chief of Staff Eric Davis. If the private proposal moves forward, it will have to do its own environmental review and public outreach, he added.
Data practice requests show plenty behind the scenes, including the North American High Speed Rail Group's attempt to to figure out how to avoid legal ramifications of sharing Tier 1 ZipRail data without cost to the private investor--or violating the terms of the federal grants that funded it.
Emails and other documents obtained by a data practice request and forwarded to Bluestem Prairie flesh out the desire of the North American High Speed Rail Group to receive the benefit of that earlier spending, as well as the expertise of the consulting engineer paid by Olmsted County.
The discussion in March of how to "transition" work product from a publicly-funded project into private hands are visible particularly in three places. First, there's this broad outline of tactics to get around legal restrictions on private use of publicly funded work product:
And then, in the next three pages of documents from the data practices material, there additional discussion, including consideration of how to fend off concerns about the project on the part of Representative Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, who had been contacted by constituents alarmed by the prospective of a high-speed train speeding across their counties (and no stops for them).
We particularly draw readers attention to this language:
:At this time, North American High Speed Rail Group (NAHSR), a Minnesota company is requesting the transfer of all rights and responsibilities related to the completion of the Tier 1 EIS feasibility study, the service development and business plan components. Additionally, if relevant and within the county’s rights and responsibilities, the right to go ahead with development upon successful completion of the appropriate federal, regional and state level authorizations and approvals including the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
"In order to successfully transition this important economic development project for Minnesota and the Southeastern region of Minnesota including: Olmsted, Goodhue, Dakota, Ramsey and Hennepin (the affected counties along the proposed corridor), the North American High Speed Rail Group requests the project management collaboration and continuity of the current Project Manager, Chuck Michael through 2015. This also allows for the significant relationships and knowledge created and cultivated at the city, county and regional levels to continue to be leveraged to the success of the project."
It's obvious that the rail group was asking for work product and project management that was paid by public dollars. Here are the three pages from which the text is drawn:
Kudoes to the Dayton administration for not signing off on this "transition."
Air right-of-way to ordinary 120-day permit
Also likely to make a cat laugh? This passage in the MPR report:
Once it receives a permit from MnDOT early next year, the North American High-Speed Rail group will have 120 days to complete its pre-development study.
It's like suddenly deciding to leave the EB-5 visa money on the side of the trail, claiming that the process was too complicated--after setting up an EB-5 visa regional center and securing approval of it from the Department of Homeland Security. In August, Watchdog.org Minnesota's Tom Steward reported in New EB-5 visa center to help finance proposed high-speed rail line that between 10 and 20 percent of the funding for the project would come from the EB-5 visa investors:
A developer seeking billions for a proposed high-speed rail line between Rochester and the Twin Cities has federal approval to launch Liberty Minnesota Regional Center, an EB-5 immigrant investment center.
North American High Speed Rail group has been quietly negotiating with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to conduct a feasibility study and for exclusive rights to build an elevated line along the 84 mile Highway 52 corridor.
The Minnesota-based group plans to raise much of the estimated $4.2 billion — in private capital from foreign individuals and governments, including China — to finance the rail project. The EB-5 program provides permanent green cards to foreign investors who invest $500,000 to $1 million in businesses or economic development projects that create or preserve at least 10 jobs for U.S. workers.
EB-5 “immigrant investors” could comprise 10 percent to 20 percent of the financial backing for the controversial private rail proposal, which has stirred opposition among skeptical residents and communities along the route.
“EB-5 has never been ruled out as a potential source for this project. We are just preparing with a much larger part of our capital stack with private investment and supplementing as needed and where appropriate with EB -5,” Joe Sperber, NAHSR CEO and Liberty Minnesota owner, said in an email.
The Watchdog.org article noted that the only project on the Liberty Minnesota website was for the EdCampus in Chaska.
Whatever the twists and turns of the private rail group's public statements--and behind-the-scenes actions might have been, the resistance in Southeastern Minnesota is foreshadowed in one of Meadley's statements to the Rochester Post Bulletin in the March 17 article, A private builder for Zip Rail?:
Meadley said her group doesn't plan to spend time trying to convince communities to back their proposal. Rather, she said the conversation could be focused on the project's potential to transform the region and ideas for what could be done as part of it.
She added, "We're going to demonstrate that it's economically viable."
NOTE: See the update on this entry, posted below the embedded draft letter. We have also modified the headline for the sake of accuracy.
NOTE 2 (December 21, 2015) See the update on this entry, posted below the embedded draft letter and first update. The headline was tweaked again for the sake of accuracy.
Many residents of the "fly-over" land over which a high speed rail passenger line between the Twin Cities and Rochester have complained about the lack of transparency--no, downright being in the dark--when it comes to the project, whether said project would be publicly or privately financed.
. . .To conclude the meeting, Rechtzigel brought up a letter he penned asking on behalf of his citizens for an update on the zip rail project.
“People are asking about where zip rail is at. People have been reading about it, but the official word is a little sketchy.”
Not having received word in months, the county board was in full agreement. Rechtzigel noted that in talks with the Dodge County administrator, he found that their county board invites the Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority (OCRRA) to address concerned citizens monthly.
The Goodhue board voted unanimously to extend a similar invitation to the OCRRA, with hopes they will have a representative present in the January or February meetings.
UPDATE 12/20/2015: Chuck Michael, the consulting engineer for the Olmsted County Rail Authority, disputes the characterization in first sentence of the draft of the letter embedded above that "It has been many months since we have received any official status report on the proposed Zip Rail project." Bold face emphasis added.
He contacted Bluestem Prairie to share some emails and math:
Chuck Is there any future TAC meetings scheduled before the end of the year? December schedules fill up fast and future meetings need to get on participants schedules well ahead of time. Thanks in advance for your prompt response. Brad
From: Chuck Michael [mailto:Chuck.Michael@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 4:49 PM To: 'Anderson, Brad' Subject: RE: TAC meetings
Brad,
We do not currently have a TAC meeting scheduled before the end of the year yet. We are currently completing the Alternatives Analysis Report, a major document that needs to be completed before further work continues on the EIS. We will be distributing the final Alternatives Analysis Report to the TAC as soon as it is completed, hopefully by late November/early December.
Regards,
Chuck
Michael prefaced the forwarded emails with this headnote:
An update on Zip Rail progress was provided to Goodhue County Commissioner Brad Anderson, the designated Goodhue County project representative on the TAC, on November 16, 2015. Commissioner Rechtzigel's letter is dated December 9, 2015 - 23 days (0.77 months) later.
Apparently, Michael believes the email exchange is an "official status report on the proposed Zip Rail project." Readers can use their own judgement about that claim. According to the Ziprail information Center's, the last Technical Advisory Committee meeting was on June 25, 2015. Minutes of the meeting are online here.
As we noted in an earlier post, in an email to Olmsted County employee and three county board members, Michael claimed that only one member of the grassroots organization Citizens Concerned About Rail Line (CCARL) attended the CAC and TAC meetings; the minutes show instead that a total of five individuals who are members or who represented the group were at one or both of the meetings.
Perhaps there's simply a failure to communicate. [end update]
UPDATE 2, 12/20/2015: In his alacrity to supply Bluestem Prairie in with official Ziprail updates last night, Michael overlooked additional sources of information about the project. He kindly sent the documents this morning, along with this note:
You seem to have overlooked the meetings of the MnDOT Minnesota Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation Forum, of which Goodhue County is a member, that provide official updates on all current passenger rail projects including Zip Rail. The most recent meetings were held November 9, 2015 and December 7, 2015.
The documents that Michael sent are not posted online, and so we post them below. Goodhue County's representative is Commissioner Brad Anderson (also a member of the ZipRail Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which has not met since June.
We are attempting obtain a list of November and December 2015 Forum attendees. Answering an email query about the status of the Ziprail Alternatives Analysis Report mentioned in the minutes, Michael wrote:
The Alternatives Analysis Report is in final review at MnDOT. With the holidays upon us the schedule for release is probably the second week of January.
We thank Michael for all the additional information he has supplied to Bluestem Prairie.
Image: An artist's vision of the public Ziprail project. The Velos line is projected to be elevated, while the Snowpiercer goes wherever the heck it wants to, tracks permitting.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Despite a $2 billion surplus this session, Drazkowski’s bill (HF 984) that he touted provided not a single new dime of LGA or direct property tax relief for rural homeowners while providing more than $1.3 billion of tax relief for wealthy metro business owners. That’s right – no property tax relief for senior citizens who will see no increase in their Social Security benefits this year, but huge tax breaks for the Canadian owners of the Mall of America. Those are the facts.
LGA helps keep property taxes affordable. Your property taxes will be higher in 2016 because of the failure to invest more in LGA. This session we need to use part of the huge budget surplus to increase LGA to our rural communities and we should invest in much needed property tax relief for our farmers.
Senior citizens, families, farmers and small businesses in rural Minnesota need this property tax relief a lot more than wealthy skyscraper and mall owners in the metro area.
Should the legislature pass a tax bill that begins to restore cuts to LGA, Bluestem has to wonder which party will be more effective in marketing itself on loving Greater Minnesota more. It does seem like the Republican Party brands itself on hating "the metro" more, which is an entirely different thing.
Cartoon: A couple of foxes working it out.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
In Friday's Rochester Post Bulletin, Andrew Setterholm reported on one Olmsted County Board meeting agenda item in County closing rail grant early.
Read on its own, the article seems fairly straight forward, but read in the context of the two sets of documents embedded in our post, Meeting minutes and email reveal Olmsted County's consulting HSR engineer can't count, the piece underscores concerns citizens have had about public spending being diverted to a project that claims it will be privately funded.
Olmsted County's investment in investigating a high-speed rail project is winding down. The county's Board of Commissioners on Thursday approved up to $175,000 in expenditures to the project for 2015, but anticipated little spending in 2016.
The county had been working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation under a $2 million grant to study the financial and environmental effects of a high-speed rail line, or Zip Rail, between Rochester and the Twin Cities; the county's share of the grant was about $300,000, said Richard Devlin, county administrator, at a Thursday county board meeting. . . .
The county has made an annual transfer of funds to the Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority, between $80,000 and $100,000 each year since 2010, Devlin told the Post-Bulletin. The rail authority, made up of county board members, could have instated a tax levy but instead chose to annually transfer funds from the county's contingency account.
paid to the rail authority in the last year have gone mostly to the studies surrounding the high-speed rail project — including a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement — and to pay its primary consultant on the project, Chuck Michael, Devlin said.
MnDOT officials in October said the department would consider suspending work on the project at the conclusion of the environmental study, in order to allow a private group to pursue the project without public support.
The North American High Speed Rail Group, a private company, has estimated the project to cost upward of $4 billion and has been seeking foreign investors.
North American High Speed Rail Group did not return a Post-Bulletin request to comment on whether the group would attempt to take on state grant funding to continue the project-related studies.
Emails and other documents obtained by a data practice request and forwarded to Bluestem Prairie flesh out the desire of the North American High Speed Rail Group to receive the benefit of that earlier spending, as well as the expertise of the consulting engineer paid by Olmsted County.
The discussion in March of how to "transition" work product from a publicly-funded project into private hands are visible particularly in three places. First, there's this broad outline of tactics to get around legal restrictions on private use of publicly funded work product:
And then, in the next three pages of documents from the data practices material, there additional discussion, including consideration of how to fend off concerns about the project on the part of Representative Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, who had been contacted by constituents alarmed by the prospective of a high-speed train speeding across their counties (and no stops for them).
We particularly draw readers attention to this language:
At this time, North American High Speed Rail Group (NAHSR), a Minnesota company is requesting the transfer of all rights and responsibilities related to the completion of the Tier 1 EIS feasibility study, the service development and business plan components. Additionally, if relevant and within the county’s rights and responsibilities, the right to go ahead with development upon successful completion of the appropriate federal, regional and state level authorizations and approvals including the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
In order to successfully transition this important economic development project for Minnesota and the Southeastern region of Minnesota including: Olmsted, Goodhue, Dakota, Ramsey and Hennepin (the affected counties along the proposed corridor), the North American High Speed Rail Group requests the project management collaboration and continuity of the current Project Manager, Chuck Michael through 2015. This also allows for the significant relationships and knowledge created and cultivated at the city, county and regional levels to continue to be leveraged to the success of the project.
It's obvious that the rail group was asking for work product and project management that was paid by public dollars. Here are the three pages from which the text is drawn:
One final piece: the insistence by the NAHSRG's strategic director--most notably at a meeting she attended--claiming that the new private project was "very different" and that the "rail group's proposal will need its own impact statement if it proceeds" rather than the ongoing Tier 1 EIS.
The Dayton administration and MNDOT have yet to sign off on the ceding of the p, or "transition," of ZipRail project documents into private hands. As rural Minnesotans, we're startled by the request for a free soft technology transfer, since while publicly-funded research is frequently transferred into private hands, those on the receiving end pay for the privilege.
Not this crowd.
A totally different project?
Even after the
Despite the desire for the transfer of government-funded studies from the ZipRail project to the private bullet train, NAHSRG strategic director Wendy Meadley would insist that the projects are "totally different," as in this tweet to Rochester Post Bulletin reporter Josh Moniz:
@Josh_Moniz@PB_News Hey Josh- let's get clear- I don't work on Zip Rail - I work for NAHSR- totally different- pls correct :) #hsr
Moreover, in August, Meadley represented the project as "early on — we haven't even started to study" to concerned citizens gathered in Pine Island. Moniz reported in Irreconcilable: Anti-rail group redoubles efforts:
She [Wendy Meadley] argued the group's proposal is very different than the Zip Rail proposal that has been pushed by the state for years. She said the rail group wants to fund it privately and that it's still a Minnesota company.
"We're doing something new that has never been done before in America," Meadley said.
While the project is in the preliminary stages, the rail group wants the exclusive rights [to build in the corridor] so it can determine if the project is economically viable, she said.
"This is early on — we haven't even started to study," Meadley said. "We're not trying to hide anything from people." . . .
The original Zip Rail proposal is undergoing a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement process. The rail group's proposal will need its own impact statement if it proceeds. . . .
And yet, behind the scenes, the emails and documents in the data practices request materials suggest that the group had asked to transfer work and expertise generated by federal government grants and state and county funds to its own hands.
Images: The Snowpiercer (above); Wendy Meadley in Pine Island in August (below), photo by Andrew Link of the Post Bulletin.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
At Houston County board meetings, the public comment portion will now be three minutes long… at the end of the meeting… once per month.
After discussion, the Houston County commissioners voted to hold public comment period at the end of the meeting of their first meeting of the month and extend to three minutes to allow speakers more time to make their point.
However, the public were none too happy of the decision. . . .
An increasingly frustrated public, while not surprised by the move, then spent much of their “public comment, comments,” this being the last such opportunity to speak until the beginning of December, to blast the commissioners for once again attempting to silence the masses.
You may recall at one point the county board stopped holding a public comment period all together.
After public outrage over that choice, the county board brought the pubic comment period back, this time reading a prepared statement by their attorney prior to each public comment period.
“My concern is you don’t know when a meeting is going to end,” commissioner Dana Kjome said, a point Stanage would later reiterate. “You know the meetings are going to start at 9 a.m., you can plan a little better and people might not want to sit here for an entire meeting just to address the board.”
The commissioners voted to move the public comment period much to the dismay of its public.
Tension over the shooting of Jamar Clark by a Minneapolis police officer spilled over into a meeting of the 13-member city council Friday, spurred by a brief protest by longtime anti-police-brutality activists. . . .
Council members and city staff seemed prepared for the protest, however. Council President Barbara Johnson immediately told Gross there was no public testimony taken at regular meetings, read the rule and asked security guards, who were there in greater numbers than usual, to remove Gross. Two other protesters took to the podium in sequence and were also removed.
Friday’s protest at the meeting pointed out what some view as a gap in council rules. Unlike some other local governments, Minneapolis’ council does not provide any opportunity for residents to speak on general topics. Testimony is taken at committee meetings, but only on the matters before that committee. Its rules can be suspended to allow the public to address the council — something it did Wednesday for testimony on the city budget — but that procedure is rarely followed.
Both the Minneapolis Board of Education and the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board have public forums during its regular meetings that allow residents to speak on any topic. Gordon was asked by a reporter after Friday’s meeting why residents shouldn’t have expected the council to discuss the killing of Clark. Gordon said that the every-other-week regular meeting is mostly to approve the work of the committees. But he said he would support a change to council rules to provide for a public forum. . . .
At the Nov. 10 meeting Judy Storlie presented a proposal to further limit public input at County Commissioner meetings. Instead of the current weekly comment period she proposed a once per month comment period. Instead of having it at the beginning of the meeting she proposed moving it to the end of the meeting. So now we will not know what time it will occur because meetings vary from ½ hour to 2 and ½ hours. The County Board approved this measure which further limits public input and makes it harder for citizens to have their voice heard.
In a truly open and transparent government the elected officials would want to have public input. So what are some of the Commissioners afraid of? Is it that some of the comments are too close to the truth? Are they getting some feedback they don’t want to hear? Is it a democracy when elected officials don’t want to hear from the public or are afraid of the accountability that comes from open dialogue? Would citizens be less frustrated if they felt they were being heard?
Is this the democratic government we aspire toward?
Perhaps the Houston County Board would rather have mass protests and occupations--as are happening in Minneapolis--than members of the public speaking at meetings.
Citizens in Houston County have been demanding that the local government adopt new ordinances dealing with the regulation of frac sand mining. Concerns about mining are not remotely as dire as the fate of the young black man black whose fate gave rise to the 4th Precinct Shut Down protests, but both situations illustrate that citizens will find a way to raise their voices, however little their government officials might want to hear them--or how uncomfortable the questions raised might be.
Image: A still from the Simpsons
We're conducting our November fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
As an Assistant Majority Leader and vice chair of the Jobs and Energy Committee, I will be fighting like heck in St. Paul to make sure we’re prioritizing broadband and that Kandiyohi County has a seat at the table.
Last year was the first year of a two-year term. We put in $10 million for broadband last year, and I hope to build on that next session. I will keep meeting with stakeholders, including my legislative colleagues, and continue to lay the groundwork for next session.
In fact, last year was 2014, and Baker had yet to be elected.
We have to wonder about the fickle nature of Baker's passions as well, for the Minnesota House Jobs and Energy Committee originally proposed zeroing out the state's budget for broadband, while eliminating the Border-to-Border broadband office.
As Baker's colleague Clark Johnson, DFL-North Mankato, observed in Connect Minnesota:
During the 2014 legislative session, I voted for $20 million in broadband grants for underserved areas. Some of that has been invested in south central Minnesota. When Governor Dayton proposed an additional $30 million in broadband grants in his state budget earlier this year, it appeared likely that we would further expand broadband to Greater Minnesota.
With a projected $2 billion state budget surplus last year, there was plenty of room for a significant investment in Greater Minnesota broadband. Unfortunately, the House Republicans initially opposed any type of funding for broadband development grants. It was only after weeks of pressure from Greater Minnesota that they began to consider supporting funding for broadband.
After long negotiations with Governor Dayton, and a special session, the final budget bill only included $10.6 million, about half of what we invested in 2014. A budget surplus is not a time to retreat from investing in critical infrastructure critical to the future of Greater Minnesota. . . .
The Post Bulletin makes the point that suggesting wireless for rural areas is like suggesting generators over getting rural homes on the power grid…
"House Republicans seemingly abandoned their broadband leadership role within a week of returning from spring break. Rep. Pat Garofalo introduced the House’s Energy and Economic Development Budget bill last week without any broadband funding. The Farmington Republican said creating hardwired systems for rural broadband is too expensive, pointing to wireless and satellite Internet as cheaper options.
"Why not take his argument a step further and note that new homes being built in Rochester don’t actually need to be connected to the power grid. A variety of generators are available at home improvement stores, which could serve the same purpose without requiring Rochester Public Utilities to incur the added expense of new lines."
The Grand Rapids Herald suggests that a push from the public is needed to help improve the broadband budget…
"The decision not to fund broadband by the House Job Growth & Energy Affordability Finance Committee is far from the final say on the issue. In fact, it could be considered the first of many skirmishes in the session over broadband funding.
"The session has about five weeks to go, and the serious bargaining is still a couple weeks away. There will be House and Senate differences on the issue, conference committee negotiations and the governor will certainly have his say in those talks and then would have to sign off on any final bill. . . ."
The Albert Lea Tribune focuses on legislators claim to be focusing on rural…
With a little more than a month to go until the end of the legislative session, we ask legislators to remember the emphasis they declared on rural Minnesota when they started the session.
With some of the bills and issues discussed in the last week, it leaves us to wonder whether that is still a goal.
The House Job Growth & Energy Affordability Finance Committee has proposed eliminating funding to build out broadband Internet access across Minnesota. This a step backward from the funding approved last year for Greater Minnesota.
According to the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities and the Greater Minnesota Partnership, nearly 40 percent of Greater Minnesota households lack access to broadband at the state speed goals compared to only 6.7 percent of households in the metro area.
Greater Minnesota’s economy and quality of life is affected by this access to high quality broadband service.
The West Central Tribune also reminds Legislators to think rural…
"For all their campaigning in 2014 on the importance of rural Minnesota, House Republicans in their budget proposal have chosen to invest $0 for the state’s broadband assistance program."
It's a good thing that Republicans like Baker are coming round to seeing the value of broadband for rural Minnesota. Indeed, he's spinning so fast on this one, he's lost track of what year it is: 2015, the same year of the session during which Greater Minnesota lobbyists and grassroots, with the help of the minority caucus, had to battle and reverse plans Garofalo and Baker's committee concocted.
No wonder Baker is confused.
Photo: Broadband is important for corn farming and other living things. It's part of a healthy business environment for Greater Minnesota.
We're about to launch our November fundraising drive. If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie's original reporting and analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
The Minnesota House Republican majority caucus loves to strut around like a flock of irate bantam roosters, crowing about their intent to "lower revenues," often from raiding money that goes to specific funds.
But McNamara has his eye on another pot o' money, the Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association tells us in its 2015 New Laws and Legislative Wrap-up:
In 1984, a $4 motor vehicle title transfer fee was added to the transaction to fund temporarily waste tire cleanup and help eradicate an outbreak of encephalitis from Treehole Mosquitoes that lived in the tires. Since then, the fee has increased by 150% and has been used over the years to fund everything from environmental cleanup to debt service on revenue bonds to plugging holes in the state’s budget.
Instigated by House Transportation Committee member and Environment Finance Chair Denny McNamara, the omnibus transportation bill includes language requiring the Pollution Control Agency to submit a report to legislators:
identifying the annual amount of revenue collected from the fee in fiscal years 2012 to 2015;
evaluating the allocation of revenue from the title transfer fee; and
specifying uses of funds from title transfer fee, including identification of any highway transportation projects for which funds are used.
The Motor Vehicle Title Transfer Fee (MVTF) was first established in law in 1972, charging $1 per automobile title transferred to fund an MPCA grant program for collection of abandoned automobiles. The Waste Management Act (Chapter 115A) established the current MVTF in 1984. Section 115A.908 specified a $4 fee on initial registration of a vehicle weighing more than 1,000 pounds and at each subsequent title transfer. Originally, the statute had a sunset date of 1994, which the Legislature extended in 1992 and 1995. The continuing need to fund pollution-prevention and cleanup activities related to auto pollution, including Superfund sites, prompted the Legislature to eliminate the sunset altogether in 1997. An August 2002 statewide survey performed by St. Cloud State University found that 60% of Minnesotans supported a $6.00 increase in the MVTF if it were used to “pay for both new and existing environmental protection programs related to vehicle pollution.”
In 2003, due to revenue shortfalls, the MVTF was redirected for deposit to the General Fund. In 2005, the fee was raised to $10.00 per title registered or transferred and continued to be deposited in the General Fund. However, in 2007, the MVTF was redirected for deposit to the Environmental Fund, where it has remained in the subsequent years.
The report concludes:
Over the past 30 years, the main sources of funding for the MPCA’s broad range of pollution management and reduction work have shifted from state General Fund to pollution-related fees and taxes. These funding sources collectively support the MPCA’s interrelated regulatory work. As the foregoing long list of our activities demonstrates, numerous agency staff in a variety of disciplines work daily to manage and mitigate the impacts from roads, bridges, trucks, and cars.
The proceeds of the Motor Vehicle Title Transfer Fee (MVTF) are clearly related by policy and longstanding legislative appropriations to the environmental impacts of our transportation system and the vehicles used by Minnesotans. The logical relationship between the revenue source and the purposes for which the revenue is used supports its continued flow into the Environmental Fund.
Since the MVTF’s establishment 30 years ago, the need to fund road and vehicle-related pollution-prevention and cleanup, including Superfund sites, has not slowed down. The Legislature affirmed the need when it eliminated the fee’s sunset in 1997. As recently as August 2002, a statewide survey by St. Cloud State University found that 60% of Minnesotans supported a $6.00 increase in the MVTF if it were used to “pay for both new and existing environmental protection programs related to vehicle pollution.” The MPCA relies on this important funding to support more 80 FTEs of work and strongly advocates for its continued long-term inclusion in the Environmental Fund.
We suspect that Representative McNamara won't be entirely unhappy about how the money's spent, since there's something about nurseries and landscaping in the report:
Roadside planting assistance
We provide technical assistance to MnDOT and local units of government on the use and availability of compost for roadside vegetation and soil reconstruction, including assisting on a near-road vegetation project to mitigate vehicle emissions (along I-35E in St. Paul). (p.5)
Since MNDOT's payments to Hoffman and McNamara come from the Trunk Highway Fund, perhaps the dollars from vehicle transfer fees can be switched from the Environmental Fund to the Trunk Highway Fund (or some other proposed stable transportation fund) to help struggling landscapers across the state.
There are so many green swathes that need attention.
Photo: Rep. Denny McNamara, holding forth on the House floor.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Every once in a while, political talking points get the better of reality. This was the fate of Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Daudt, R-Crown, during a trip to Brian Daniels' district, wherein the elder statesman, who lives on an Isanti County farm with his brother during the week while cavorting at his homesteaded lake cabin near Cambridge on weekends rejoiced at getting out of the metro.
. . . Minnesota Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt (R-Crown) toured local businesses, healthcare facilities and nonprofits accompanied by Faribault representative Brian Daniels.
The purpose of the visit was simple: Obtain a better understanding of the community and the issues it faces.
“The challenges are very different in smaller communities than they are in the metro area, so we have to understand how to represent the entire state,” Daudt said. . . .
It is that exact issue that has driven Daudt to spend a couple of days of each week traveling outside the metropolitan area, something he said he urges his fellow lawmakers to do as well.
As far as we can tell, the biggest town in Speaker Daudt's district (and closest to the Daudt farm) is Zimmerman, population 5,228, 40 plus miles north northwest of Minneapolis; his weekend "cabin" is closer to Cambridge, population 8,111, though the property isn't in his district. Driving distant from Cambridge to Minneapolis is 47 miles.
And Faribault, the benighted district Daudt had to travel to understand how "challenges are very different in smaller communities than they are in the metro area" is home to 23,352 good country people. It's about 50 miles south of the Cities.
Does he get mileage and a per diem to travel from smaller communities to a larger one to learn about the unique needs of small towns compared to the fleshpots of Minneapolis and St. Paul? Or does the place-baiting majority caucus cover the gas?
Photo: Speaker Daudt. Perhaps he'll visit sunny Maynard soon to learn about life in the big city--and hold a fundraiser at Budger's. Awesome food.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
While the supporters of re-opening the private prison in Appleton appear to have declared victory after a Prison Population Taskforce informal informational hearing in which no recommendations were made, an article by Forum News Service reporter Don Davis suggests that the issue is far from a done deal.
Moreover, we've noticed that local leaders from Appleton and Swift County are claiming both that keeping the prison shuttered spells economic doom for their residents and that they've developed economic development strategies that don't include the prison.
We took a look at recent jobless rates in Swift County and surrounding counties--and were surprised at what we found.
Let's hope that Goff Public isn't advising its clients and their supporters to assert what the union and other opponents believe--and that members of the press seek out opponents of the project to speak to their positions.
Supporters of a shuttered private western Minnesota prison face plenty of roadblocks before they could get state inmates back in the facility.
Optimism was strong Wednesday when two Democratic senators said they liked the idea of the state leasing and running the prison facility, with unionized state workers.
But American Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5 union, which represents state prison workers, apparently will keep pressure on Democratic lawmakers to oppose the Appleton prison plan.
“AFSCME opposes a lease arrangement that would give CCA a foothold in Minnesota,” AFSCME spokeswoman Jennifer Munt said about the Corrections Corporation of America, which used to run the prison itself. “Our union believes that private prisons should be prohibited. They shouldn’t be able to operate or lease their facilities in our state because it’s morally wrong for corporations to profit from human incarceration.”
Munt said that the union supports using the facility, which has been closed since 2010. For it to be used as a prison, however, she said an acceptable option would be for the state to buy it.
“Criminal justice is a core responsibility of government, and public workers should be protecting public safety,” Munt said. . . .
FYI. AFSCME opposes a lease agreement that would give CCA a foothold in Minnesota.
One of the more interesting parts of the discourse at the end of Thursday's hearing when the Appleton option was raised after hours of other possibilities dealt with conflicting claims for reopening the prison, made by local officials.
Claims: Reopening Appleton prison paves way to fewer beds; hard times but no bubble
Munt is on to something when she speaks of the foothold in Minnesota, and the conflicting claims within Appleton and Swift County officials' testimony give us pause.
It's claimed that Swift County is suffering from the prison's shuttering in 2010, but that the county has moved away from the prison (originally owned by a corporation set up by Appleton leaders hoping to turn a buck on prisoners; when the group defaulted on its bond, they turned their nose up at the option to sell the facility to the state, taking an offer from CCA instead).
Reopening the prison will cause the city to bloom again, but it will also spur the state to reform the criminal justice system, and a temporary lease will save money by avoiding bonding for more state prison space.
Under an outline Appleton and Swift County officials presented, the state would lease the prison but the Corrections Department would run it and could staff it with union workers. Hendrickx and Appleton Mayor Chadwick Syltie told the task force that reopening the prison would provide a boost to an area with high unemployment. Roy downplayed the CCA option, saying it could cost $50 million a year to run the Appleton facility, compared to his plan that would add a $16 million annual operating cost. . . .
Some task force members warned local officials that they could face a second prison closing if they are successful in prison populations
“It would be my intent that it would be the first one to be closed” as prison populations fall, Rep. Dan Schoen, D-St. Paul Park, said, adding that he opposes the Appleton prison even though he has family in the area.
“We could be creating a bubble that is going to burst,” Rep. Raymond Dehn, D-Minneapolis, said.
After the meeting, Appleton and Swift County officials said they have diversified their economy since the prison closed in 2010 and are better able to handle it if the prison reopened and later closed. . . .
Just how jobless are Swift County and West Central Minnesota workers?
Here are the September 2015 figures for Swift County and surrounding areas (click on the photo for a larger view):
While Swift County's 3.8 percent unemployment rate is the highest in the area, most of West Central Minnesota hovers between 2.1 percent and 3.2 percent.
When we look at historical data for 2014-2015, we find that Swift County did have a big bump about the time the commissioners hired Goff Public, but the unemployment rate has declined even in the benighted prairie county (click on the photo for a larger view):
However, the non-adjusted Minnesota rate is 3.2 percent, so Swift County's rate is .6 points higher, while the rest of the counties in the area are equal to or below the state non-seasonally adjusted rate. The highest unemployment in Greater Minnesota is found in the Range and vicinity, with the city of Hibbing topping the map with a 8 percent non-seasonally adjusted rate.
We don't see anyone pushing to open the Appleton prison--which is a privately-owned prison, not a public building for which bonding could be used to repurpose the facility for a mental health or drug treatment center, as Senator Barbara Goodwin, Dfl-Columbia Heights, suggested on Thursday--also advocating a sunset on the lease accompanied by a timeline of reform to reduce the prison population.
Instead,without such assurances, this looks like a plan to help CCA draw some compensation for its idle property. (And perhaps the silliest thing said during Thursday's hearings was Mankato state senator Kathy Sheran fretting that Swift County would lose property taxes if CCA went bankrupt. We suggest that she read the company's financial reports to ease her mind).
The senators' remarks, along with Swift County weeping about its unemployment crisis, are found on the MnHouse Info channel's YouTube of the entire hearing, which runs four hours, nine minutes. The debate over Appleton begins at the 3:18 minute marker, at the very end of the long hearing. Here's the outline of time stamps from the House's channel:
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
UPDATE 10/12/2015: In an email, Lars Negstad, an organizer for ISAIAH MN, confirms that the paper didn't contact the organization for the story. ISAIAH-MN conducted a prayer vigil at the state office building before last month's Prison Population Taskforce informal meeting, and the group is a leader in the coalition seeking criminal justice reform over profiting on a glut of inmates. [end update]
One never knows what editors leave on the news room floor, but based on the copy in a report about re-opening the CCA prison in Appleton, Bluestem finds the usually excellent West Central Tribune reporter Tom Cherveny coming up short.
Economic tipping point triggers prison campaign does a good job of presenting the point of view of those scheming to re-open the Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton. Unfortunately, it also allows those folks to frame and answer the objections that those opposed to the project have raised.
We doubt that religious leaders at ISAIAH or union officials--or those they represent authorized Goff Public or its clients to speak for them.
Ever since, a task force from Swift County and the city of Appleton along with Sen. Lyle Koenen, DFL-Clara City and Rep. Tim Miller, R-Prinsburg, have been working to convince the state: Leasing the Prairie Correctional Facility in Appleton is the answer to the state’s needs. . . .
The task force members also believe that state staffing resolves the concerns of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the bargaining unit for state employees. AFSCME wants to maintain union workers in the state corrections system.
One would think that a call to AFSCME Council 5--rather than the opinion of the local task force--would be a more reliable source on the union's concerns. Jennifer Munt is the union's Director of Public Affairs & Public Policy. She, not those pushing the facility in Appleton, is authorized to speak for the union's concerns.
And there's this:
Adding to the challenge for making the cause on behalf of the Appleton facility are calls by legislators and organizations in the state for prison reform. Those calling for reforms want the state to reduce its prison population, the two legislators said. . . .
Fidler said the Department of Corrections is confident that the county jails are meeting all that is asked of them. He also pointed out, however, that no one is making the case that county jails can provide the long-term services needed by many of these inmates.
Leasing the Appleton facility could allow the state to provide the programming and save it the expense of building new cells. Miller and Koenen both noted that building new prison cells would take up a large share of any state bonding measure. It would also obligate the state to maintain prison cells for another 50 to 100 years that might not be needed if prison reforms are achieved.
If the state leases prison cells, it can always end the relationship when the need for the cells no longer exists, Fidler said.
“A home run for everybody,’’ he said of a possible lease agreement.
Again, one would think that those raising these concern would be best to speak to them, rather than those who are pushing revive a local economy by re-opening a shuttered prison.
Indeed, Cherveny closes the article by marshalling numbers assembled "a few years ago" by the Upper Minnesota Valley Regional Development Commission and the city of Appleton assembled that looked at the economic impact of the prison and its closing.
No one on the local re-opening task force--and certainly not the two legislators on it--would benefit from the "home run" for the "prison reform."
Those advocating reform call it criminal justice reform--a discussion that addresses sentencing, alternative courts such as drug courts, mental health services and substance abuse treatment, among other things. All of these issues came up at the state Prison Population TaskForce meeting, while Saturday's article suggests that re-opening the Appleton Prison was one of the centerpiece proposals of that first meeting.
Let's see Miller and Koenen introduce or support measures for criminal justice reform, push them through, insist on them as a condition for the lease--making it temporary, if it is indeed the most cost effective option for beds in a time of reform.
Otherwise, this simply looks like what the Appleton prison has always been--an attempt first by the city, then by CCA, to cash in on projected inmate gluts. Those who seek to base a region's economic development on this have only a disincentive to move criminal justice reform, whatever lip service to it their lobbyists tell them to spin in the media and St. Paul.
Photo: The shuttered prison at Appleton.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.
The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.
Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors. While progressive in outlook, she does not caucus with any political party.
Recent Comments