TOWN CENTER: I have opened up on screen a few windows - on the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Who was the piper? More interesting, which pack were the rats, and which the children?
The rats were led by the piper first, that's all I recall from childhood. I need to reread the story.
What effect is there for Ramsey's futute from a letter of credit if the letter was issued for or in benefit of securing actions by a firm that's been through [or is still in??] an involuntary bankruptcy?
Who benefits by it remaining a letter of credit? Does it remain? Was it formally voided via a bankruptcy order? Or is it extinguished as a practical matter, because the promises it secured were those of a defunct entity that will no longer be taking any actions? Or is the entity not yet fully defunct, but inoperative?
More importantly (to being a citizen of Ramsey), a letter of credit - what's it get for Ramsey, next year and the following years, when taxes are due and payable from the citizenry? How will it help lower somebody's property taxes?
If there are funds in escrow for the benefit of the city, how much, who holds, and what are the escrow instructions, terms, and conditions?
And who, if anyone, is disputing your rights to the pot of escrowed cash?
Why in escrow? Why not released? What would be a triggering event for release of money to Ramsey? Again: Terms and conditions? Rights and remedies? Who set it all up? Who was protecting, or responsible for protecting the citizens' collective interest during set-up stages?
And are the funds committed in some unconditional way, or like a letter of credit - an account against which conditional draws can be made - as best as I in my ignorance understand what a letter of credit is.
I suppose you need to read contracts and papers. You have to find them first.
You have to know what to ask for in a drowning sea of paperwork known as the City of Ramsey, and another paper pileup, known as the Ramsey Town Center. Put all the papers in a Boeing 747, and could it get off the ground or would the weight be too great, too heavy?
You want to see key city paperwork, regarding the City of Ramsey and the Ramsey Town Center? That's reasonable. An easy expectation to meet even? Sorry, Charlie. Not on the city's website - but you have an abundance of information there and in every Ramsey Resident, on watering restrictions and car seat safety.
No follow the money, but car seat safety. Am I the only one to feel a degree of insult in that?
If you, the city, have a contract involving some interest or future claim in or against land, tying up some future interests but not holding present title to anything - it seems you would want to have that interest on record in front of, not behind a mortgage that a banker might foreclose.
It just seems to make sense you'd think that way. And that after a bunch of papers got recorded in a $1.3 billion, 2800 housing unit "nice-shoppes-and-restaurants" promotion, you'd check the store, so to speak, and if things were at all amiss you'd then say, "Wait, before we proceed further, we need to correct something." It just seems that Mom and Pop operating the family drugstore would have that degree of common sense - so why not a city?
Or am I missing something fundamental? Something where a person can contact me and straighten out my thinking and views.
I am open to anyone with ideas and suggestions - including where I might be wrong or ignorant or misunderstanding. A city planner confronted me disagreeing that legoland at the corner of Hwy. 116 and Ramsey Blvd. is butt-ugly. I respect the interchange of ideas. I still think I am right, and that it is, but discussing things is how you learn and modify views, when in error. You learn by having someone explain things patiently, if patience is needed, when you may be misunderstanding something, or holding a wrong view.
But you give straight answers, straight talk, and explanations that make good sense. You don't bloviate, meander or obfuscate. I discussed the matter with the mayor recently. Patience was not lacking in the conversation.
I remember mentioning at a 2003 council meeting the basic disirability of assuring the city is in a first position in the land records, in front of and ahead of the bank, any bank, so that whatever rights or interests the city has or would attain would be immune from risk of extinguishment via foreclosure. It is not rocket science to think that way. Strommen and Zimmerman voted back then to not grant preliminary plat approval unless and until the development agreement was finalized. They were one vote short of having it sequenced that prudent way. Had the mayor or Elvig, on record numerous times as worried then about the city's security, voted with the prudent pair of councilmembers, the development contract would have been reached and recorded before the loan was negotiated or needed.
Suggesting the city should want to be (and would take a few simple steps to assure it was) in the first position was a specific comment I made to the council, at a council meeting, during that time 2003 frame. I fear it was at an untelevised work session so there's no record except a James Norman minutes version which - well - we all had and still have our opinions of James Norman.
This demonstrates all the more reason to reinstitute televising work sessions and to archive a complete set of meeting DVDs at city hall [and off site, i.e., double the security of the complete record via a parallel QCTV archive].
That would be similar to the proposal, a sound one, of utilizing verbatim transcripts of meetings - including public works and finance committee meetings, as well as work sessions, and the dog-and-pony show regular meetings that are all that's televised presently.
So, a few more dumb questions: What is adequate notice for a bankruptcy court proceeding to trigger a need to file (or lose) a claim? That's another thing I do not know, what if actual notice is most fundamental and if you know a bankruptcy is going on and you have a claim but have not been served a formal notice or summons, what is your duty and needs, if you want to protect such a claim? What presence did the city have in the Nedegaard bankruptcy? And, was it only Nedegaard or was the Ramsey Town Center LLC in bankruptcy? I am no bankruptcy expert. Far from it. If I were I would not be asking questions, would I? But bankruptcy is it's own thing, under federal law but with separate courts and separate rules and ways of practice.
Why should I, as a citizen of Ramsey, have to ferret out such things relevant to the council and officials taking a multi-million dollar plunge into the unknown, with self-confessed felon Bruce Nedegaard as co-venturer?
At the point when the city learned that Nedegaard, in copping a plea, had confessed guilt to a crime of moral terpitude, i.e., Aug. 2, 2004, a Monday with a council meeting as I understand things - a work session scheduled that very same day, when at that point there was no discussion of the Nedegaard situation at the Aug. 2, 2004 council work session, but raising councilmember pay was on the agenda. And thoroughly discussed.
What steps were taken to review things - given that initial notice - including a check then [if not sooner] of the records in the recorder's office, to see where things stood in dealings with one then known to cut corners, in a moral terpitude fashion; and with express notice of that fact and not merely constructive or record notice from the matter being in a court file but unknown to senior city officials? I would not fault Gamec or Elvig on council, neither with a university degree much less training and experience in the law, for not being the ones to think to check things out. I think they relied on others for that, as did Strommen, with an advanced degree but not in law and with a full-time job apart from city affairs.
My guess is the responsibility to protect the city, to double check aspects of the deal when a red flag is waved, should devolve upon those with first notice, particularly if having specialized expertise. But that's a guess. Another question, really. Is it ever too late or imprudent to double check an ongoing deal?
Try this: Go to the city website. Off the menu band atop, choose DOCUMENTS. Then do a LaserFiche search = Nedegaard. Do it. Today, before new meetings, you should get 40 hits. Strangely, none of them are in that July-October 2004 timeframe. When news of the plea was fresh. The matter is not in the regular public records of the City, for citizen awareness, as one might, indeed, should expect. We are Ramsey. We need notice of when a billion dollar plus deal raises cause to think that there might be a greater need for caution and review of the then current true status quo.
There is an appearance of a failure to check out the deal, at the county records level - at the recorder's office, which seems an ongoing neglect until quite recently.
The Nedegaard name does appear more frequently in 2007 minutes, full agendas, etc.
Why am I and Ben Dover being kept in the dark? Or why is there that appearance?
There's an adage about mushrooms. I think it is aimed at saying you should feel insulted by those who treat you like one. So, who else has that nagging feeling that things are deliberately kept obscure by the city hall crowd? Sure, there are reasons - and Crosby, Stills and Nash had a nice song about ninety-nine reasons. All in a line.
Why is the info content and concentration so discernibly low on the city's website?
Who benefits, how, from the LaserFiche system being so primitive and inadequate and slow in getting at even the scant record there among all the irrelevant stuff the records have been seeded with? Who benefitted from the routine of 300+ page full agendas with the nuggets of truth needing diligent prospecting, and the patience of Job, to ferret out the ore from the unproductive tailings?
Simply put: What is the city's position and set of rights relative to the bank that is presently foreclosing a mortgage and intending a mortgage sale for later this month?
That one is about the easiest question to ask. And to answer.
The city's rights relative to the bank that is forclosing are given in a single word. Indeterminate. Indeterminate for now, until somebody sitting higher in the room than anyone else, in a black robe and holding a hammer, drops a decision onto the parties in litigation over that very question.
So, why is the city's position not stronger? who was at the switch, when, and was that person [those persons] fully asleep, or asleep enough to miss something crucial?
Was it negligence? Professional as opposed to ordinary negligence? What is an error or an omission? Is the answer that there has been one when a judge or jury says so, so sue to find out? Ben, now in the hot muggy sunlight across the road from city hall, with the cold of winter past, but there, and still smiling, who will do that for you, Ben, if not your city's fiduciaries in office? Do they need prodding? Or will they, on reflection, move on their own?
There are many, many, many things I don't know which is why I have so many such questions.
I am looking back at council minutes and full agendas from the fall of 2003, and in trying to track down all the full agendas from that time frame - some things on the city website make this a bit difficult but the staff people responsible for the site accessibility are capable. However, they are not the folks responsible for the decision to use LaserFiche's crude access and painfully slow storage - that - well, I do not think the council specifically voted on that - they may have - but James Norman was the chief of staff back when that prime-time choice happened.
So, blame the empty chair, eh?
In full fairness to James Norman - his empty chair - it is still LaserFiche and all its inadequacies, in place and unchanged, and James Norman's a half year away from Ramsey's still staying with that bad decision.
It's broke.
Fix it.
Make information easier to find and use.
The citizens are paying the freight. More, and more, and more, year by year by year.
I also have a few public data requests now pending with the county. They are aimed to try to discover if there's any paper trail of what escrow handling occurred when the City's Master Development Agreement and the lender's mortgage were recorded - numbers apart in the records, but with the City's position clearly junior, of record, to the mortgage.
Was there inattention to the protection of the City's interest in Town Center things then, to the point of being professional negligence; and if so, what's to be done?
Or was it a conscious decision, a let the bank be first choice made by some decision maker(s) now remaining very silent; a decision to simply not care whether the lender, or the city, were to be in first position against the property - to not care back then although the question arguably is timely, at present.
Rose colored glasses? Refusal to consider downside risk? Just take the ball and run upfield? As easy as baking a cake?
Again, what I've heard, pronouncements from city hall, matters reported by Pioneer Press and Star Tribune, that the city has its security "in the ground." Right there with the ostrich hiding it's head, I suppose.
Infrastructure, in the ground, is going to produce how many tax dollars, next year and the year after?
That's another thing I don't understand. Why cash flow does not seem an important thing to be concerned about - on the part of city officials. At least when you view outside demeanor - the publicly presented personas - it seems the theme is nothing beyond, "Don't worry, be happy."
Consider this: Instead of discussing the real billion dollar issues frankly and at length, the city is talking about an award for best Happy Days photograph.
See, Ramsey Resident, July-August 2007, p. 7.
Look at that entire document. No real mention of details of Town Center going splat. No mention of how your taxes are impacted. No candid truth on big concerns. Happy Days. Here again. Soon.
If that is not telling us all, "Don't worry, be happy," what is it?
There is one saving grace; if the City's promising shown below is truly and honestly to be free of bait-and-switch from the town fathers [and in-laws]:
So there you have it. I am so ignorant I don't understand letters of credit, security "in the ground," whether there are any real dollars escrowed anywhere, and if so under what terms and conditions? I don't understand whether Natalie, whose footprints and fingerprints are all over the spread of the Town Center rose-colored glasses syndrome among others, will for this comp plan be more restrained and do less pushing and shaping. Chastised, or as aggressive and self-certain as ever?
There I go - more questions. Just a font of inquiry. Sorry.
I think there was a way that negligence might have been avoided, or caught early and corrected, but then, I am only a fool asking questions.
IN CLOSING: Pioneer Press reported that John Feges said he was never involved in the Ramsey Town Center LLC financing questions, "Because I am one who would have asked the hard questions."
Interesting.
It is so unfortunate the gentleman was not able to ask his hard questions.
I am saddened by that. He and I have, I guess, a tendency to ask questions. I have a few about the litigation he was involved in dating back to the 1990's in Anoka County, where so far I only have the court files to rely on, because John Feges, in my one meeting with him only briefly said a word or two about the situation [it all being the lawyer's fault] before Barbara Dunlay cut him off, as the third person at that meeting.
Anyway, I ask easy questions. Leave the hard questions to John Feges.
It's not hard to know there are answers to easy questions. It only might be that some folks might find the answers hard to face. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
So, where's the money? Where did it go? I would feel a lot more comfortable if city hall were saying our security is in a big humongo pile of money somewhere specific where we have first reach and take, unconditionally, and without anyone in dispute of our rights or our grabbing as we please.
But "In the ground"?
With Captian Kidd's pirate treasure? X marks the spot? Where the treasure's buried? Not skeletons? Are there skeletons? I don't even know how the sale from the land holders to the Ramsey Town Center LLC was priced per acre, back in 2003 when it is said the land holders were cashed out; or earlier when option terms were set.
Was price per acre based on a fixed and negotiated price, or left pegged to a subsequent appraisal? There was supposed to be a contract. I was told that. But I never sat a table with Nedegaard and/or the sellers, going through a document line-by-line, paragraph-by=paragraph. In fact, I never saw a document and it is pure hearsay, to me, that one ever existed. Moreover, it is pure hearsay from Pattiann Kurak in the firehouse hallway that there was a total cashout before Ms. Kurak voted on PACT school matters as a councilmember purportedly without any further conflict of interest by then.
We only need the map to find the X marking the spot?
Then all else falls into place?
Is there a map? Who holds the map? When is the bank's answer due in the litigation the city filed? What can we expect the bank to plead? What counterclaim; what excuse and affirmative defenses?