An email from Matt Look. He identified himself, and stated his case. That meets the criteria for publishing a comment. Plus point-counterpoint, there being a second Look email, as published.

[Update note: I adjusted the date-time of this post to have it atop others. It merits top billing.]

Verbatim:

From: "Matt Look" -  looksigns@gmail.com

Eric:

I was reminded by someone that you were rambling on your blog about me. I recently went there, so count me on the 6 people that actually read it.

Two points:

(1) Taxes did go down. The last two years of my tenure, by 15%. Now I understand that you don't pay property taxes and that this may not mean a hill of beans to you.
To Junbauer's statement (which I've not heard and you could be making up, knowing that your integrity is questionable), when you buy a project for 4.75 million dollars through internal loan transfer, you are in effect paying yourself interest when those funds are replaced (through land sales). That is GOOD BUSINESS. Contrary to deception that you are trying to spread, that somehow the residents of Ramsey are in anyway paying for the purchase of towncenter. You need to realize that city funds/investments right now are making .3% interest. What is the inflation rate? 2-4%? THAT IS GOOD BUSINESS...to borrow money from yourself!

(2) Why don't you tell the whole story? We bought Town Center, rebranded, retold the story and made viable again. That being said, we set Jim Deal up for success in his ability to even attract the VA. Let me see, bankrupt, near tax forfeiture story, but come on in....we don't know how or if it will ever shape up....but don't consider that, invest in Ramsey! How far would that marketing strategy have gone?
Today, we have Allina, VA, Acapulco, and signed letters of intent of 80 million dollars. Jumping ship, Changing Horses in Mid Stream? What are you stupid. Thanks for the vote of confidence...I must be the only guy that made all this happen. You must either be scared or unsure of how the future is going to continue on with the talent leaving! Or maybe you haven't seen how the county has screwed the city with decisions that have closed and hurt business, excessive tax levying for expansions of parks, park monuments, medians, 500 county employee credit cards, and political games played on the rail stop!

Wake up Eric...get back on the meds
Watch the candidate forum....pay special attention to the references to AAA bond rating. You know how bonds work right? Borrow large sums of money, sell bonds, pay for the next 20+ years. The only problem is the county budget is so tight that when they cut .8% (as the paper reported) they were cut back to barebones. How are you going to pay for the new bonds? Raise taxes? Good luck with Earhardt's support of Natalie....Godfather wants his power back! Met Council wants an insider. Can you handle a good-old-boy reign of terror?
--
Matt Look
Look Signs Inc
612.558.9111

Matt is a little unclear about this guaranteed interest thing, at three percent. I believe it is the HRA promising to pay the City back, if there ever is enough cash in HRA accounts to make good on the promise. That might strike you as the city taking money, if there, from the left hip pocket and moving it to the right hip pocket. It has that appearance to me. Counterparty risk is real, as the housing foreclosure situation demonstrates. And to make a technical distinction between Ramsey's HRA and its general fund, is making a distinction without a difference.

Also, I have yet to see any letter of intent for a dollar three eighty, never mind eighty million.

And two words Look failed to choose from, "conditional," and "unconditional."

Do you want to bet there are no unconditional letters of intent, with real money put at risk into a forfeitable escrow, under express terms and conditions, and without lots of weasel words?

Matt, if you read this, (I will send him email about publishing), could you give a bit of detail about that? I will publish letters, if you send them in scanned form, and readers can decide. And these letters, are they from newly formed and thinly capitalized LLC entities, or for real?

Finally, Matt, I put the Elk River paper's link into the post at the very top, first sentence, have a look here, so unless your chum Mike Jungbauer has the Elk River paper publish a correction, of some kind of put together qualification or redaction, it stands as reported, quotation marks and all - and as I noted in posting Jungbauer's referring to the state instead of Ramsey is a distinction as to governmental entity, but not on the underlying principle that I believe Jungbauer, if intellectually consistent, would have to admit. To deny a parallelism in principle, and insist that a State-Ramsey non-equivalence exists based on HRA - city exchanges possibly of future funds from an account to another, with or without interest, is basically drawing a distinction without any difference.

Shifting cash around, taking funds from one place to another for short term purposes, he called it stealing, a lack of vision, and burdensome upon the future:

[red highlighting added] For full context, THIS ONLINE NEWSPAPER LINK.Sorry if you cannot read well, or want to deny reality when it stares you directly in the eyeballs, Matt that is your perogative, but it's in the article and in the above screenshot, big as life and twice as ugly:

It is as it is.

________UPDATE________
Matt now says in his email, ""Jumping ship, Changing Horses in Mid Stream? What are you stupid. Thanks for the vote of confidence...I must be the only guy that made all this happen. You must either be scared or unsure of how the future is going to continue on with the talent leaving!"

How quickly the tune can change, from a boastful earlier first person usage, which I suppose I mistook as something stated to stand behind and not repudiate the very first time repudiation comes conviently knocking on the door saying, "Try me." This is Facebook, real history, underlining added, make of it what you will.

Same guy. Changing outlook.

It is as it is.

__________FURTHER UPDATE_________

In fairness to the mayor and others having a part in making the decision, Matt Look included, I believe spending down reserves when they yield less than bonding would cost, is wise to a point, but only to a point. Have the council members exceeded that point. It is too hard to say, and if (but only if) it does not not become a repeat record to dip into reserves then it is okay. Was the third water tower financed out of reserves? Perhaps Matt can clear that up. My point, if you dodge debt service in the budget by burning through the reserves so you can say you don't need to raise taxes; be fully explicit about what you are doing and do not only chest pound over keeping the tax rate down. My belief is back when the Norman Castle was built for nineteen million, it should never have been done but if done it should have been financed in whole or in substantial part out of reserves to keep expenses down. Had that been done, the current play on the reserves would not have been justified, and it would be either bond and pay the debt service, or take reserves too close to zero. Because the earlier council incurred debt and debt service expenses; there was a pot of reserves to play with. I am not as critical of using reserves as they were used, as I am of the short-term boast  about keeping tax rates down while using reserves. And then, how honest is it to talk as if it is a given that the Ramsey Town Center fiasco will reverse itself, the kissed frog will become a prince, etc., when it is equally or more likely the thing will never pay present citizens back for the tax hit they have taken so far over the thing. And I agree Steffen was a pushing force up front, when the market looked rosy and downside risk was ignored. I fault that less than being a pushing force for the purchase, when the market looks anything but rosy, with downside risk again being ignored as though it were some given on-high truth, that the spending of reserves will ultimately prove justified and not wasteful. The jury will be out on that hummer for years, and years, and years, and yes I think the entire Town Center thing was dumb from day one, and it keeps getting dumber. Opinions differ. I remember being promised shops and restaurants; as if it would be low-hanging fruit on the tree there easily for the enjoyment of all - yet the honest truth is it took a six-figure subsidy to get Acapulco to locate in Ramsey Town Center, and Tammy Sakry of the ABC Newspapers has reported it. 

A lot of shared-wall housing, empty weedfields, and one restaurant that had to be subsidized to locate there, that's the Ramsey Town Center track record, and it is not a winning-horse's track record. It's a claimer's record, and the City paid more than claimer pricing for its gamble. And, honestly calling it a gamble -

It is as it is.

________________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
A second email from Matt Look - verbatim:

Jungbauer's comments have to do with the STATE balancing their budget, "stealing" as he puts it from one fund to another, instead of reducing spending to BALANCE THE BUDGET.

You need to understand there is a difference between balancing a budget with existing expenditures on the books (committments)...STATE, and making an investment in the future of a CITY, with policy in place to return the money as land sales occur. In uncertain times, we have secured the future of Ramsey and it's tax base by spending what amounts to less than a water tower. As that future comes to fruition, we get paid back. What is so difficult to understand?

FYI, there are commitments of escrow in our letters of intent...if there weren't, it wouldn't be a big deal, certainly nothing worth talking about. BUT, because there are.....IT IS A BIG DEAL!

Is your goal is to torpedo anything the city does? You mentality is not too much unlike a drawing victim.......they desperately try to pull under and drown the rescuer. Not clear thinking in my opinion.

Publish this one!
--
Matt Look
Look Signs Inc
612.558.9111

I wish I had an infallible crystal ball to say "... with policy in place to return the money as land sales occur." My crystal ball says, "... if sufficient land sales occur." I should trade it for Matt's I guess. Mine says "gamble" while his says "don't worry, be happy."

Look argues, "In uncertain times, we have secured the future of Ramsey and it's tax base by spending what amounts to less than a water tower.". Good quote.

Was the third water tower financed out of further depletion of reserves?

Again that troublesome crystal ball I have, it says, "In uncertain times, we have gambled over the future of Ramsey and put Landform into a comfortable five-figure-per-month cash flow posture ..." and that's not what Matt's optimistic crystal ball says.

I wonder, did his crystal ball say real estate prices are only going to go up and up, without trouble, without reversals.

Mine urged caution; and said don't do dumb things as if you know outcomes that you don't.

I wonder if Natalie Steffen has a crystal ball, saying who is going to represent the Anoka County District 1 next year and onward. I have little doubt Matt's crystal ball says, "Don't worry, be happy." That must be why he is taking time to send me emails. Time to spare, for addressing minor details.

___________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Hat tip to Bob Ramsey, factual assistance, and not argumentative, in his email:

The 3rd water tower was paid for (not borrowed for) from the dedicated water utility fund. The cost of the tower was around 3.4 million and the fund had in excess of 10 million, current balance is around 6 million. Water utility funds are generated and collected from the users of city water.

...........................

A third email from Matt Look - verbatim:

EXPLAIN

Mike's chum, Matt Look has been chest pounding around everywhere about Ramsey not raising the tax rate, short-term, recently, which was an arrangement achieved by buying the failed Ramsey Town Center via depletion of reserve funds (set aside for other purposes than land speculation and consultancy hirings).

Q: How do we not raise the tax rate, rather cut the tax rate, through an arrangement achieved by buying failing RTC? Lowering the tax rate is a function of cutting the budget. Arrangement? You must be referring to the back taxes that were owed and were paid to the city from the proceeds of the sale?

--
Matt Look
Look Signs Inc
612.558.9111

Well, I might let Matt have the last word, but, taxes were not paid to the city. They were "abated" as were assessments as was interest on same.

The County got paid off on its tax lien, dollar for dollar. Per Ramsey CFO Lund (already posted once, here - strangely that Jungbauer name shows up frequently) a quote within a quote; the Lund info being the meat of the sandwich, the two bread slices being Crabgrass context:

Regarding price and terms of "buying the farm," I have this June 25, 2010 email information from Diana Lund, Ramsey's CFO [bracketed material being added in explanation and/or as editorializing]:

The City closed on the property on June 26, 2009.


The following actions transpired:


Minnwest Bank was responsible for the payment of delinquent property taxes in the amount of $1,329,212 and current taxes through June 25 of $341,284 or a grand total of $1,670,496 for property taxes related to the RTC parcels.


The net amount that Minnwest received at closing was $5,056,529 after taxes and deed tax. [Hence although the bank tendered the check to Anoka County so that it got its back taxes paid one hundred cents on the dollar, the money came out of Ramsey and was a flow-through to the County.]


The City paid $6,764,479 which was the land costs of $6,750,000, 5 days of interest(June 26-June 30) at $7,129 with the remainder closing fees & Title Insurance.


Council at an earlier date elected to abate the special assessments. At the time of the abatement, Anoka county had the special assessments recorded at $8,704,791. This was represented as such:


Principal: $5,851,197


Interest applied by the City at 6.3% from 2/22/05-Dec 31, 2009: $1,420,976


Penalties and interest applied by the county from 2/22/08: $1,432,618




Grand total: $8,704,791


[Meaning that the city not only paid nearly seven million cash for the badlands, but comprimised an additional tax and assessment arrearage of nearly nine million. Fifteen million plus, altogether, for a gambler's shot at rehabbing the thing and with Jungbauer - Landform apparently eager to do a pond scheme.]


At a HRA meeting on April 13, 2010, council chose to be paid back for the principal only of the assessments from future land sales [if any] of the Town Center parcels. The reason being, that the City did not have to bond for funds to pay for the land purchase or any projects within Town Center in which the special assessments were applicable, and the penalties and principal from the county should not be applicable as these were just additional fees. The feeling being that the removal of penalties and interest brings the land costs into a more reasonable saleable value. [Somehow, but then if there's a true and legitimate recapture intent down the line, removing the tax-and-assessment lien seems to be a difference in form but not substance.]


[They are gambling with city money, from reserve accounts and not via current bonding or taxing, and any claim of reduction of taxation in 2010 must be viewed from the perspective of a massive withdrawal from reserves, consciously done, thereby allowing the "no tax hike" claim to be made (but with the drum beating ignoring details of drawing down reserves and compromising liens). See email wrap-up, below.]


As for the funding of the RTC land the following funds were used:


Internal transfer from water & sewer funds $4,650,000 (to be repaid from future land sales)
Anoka County HRA-Reserves held by the county for City related to Savannah Oaks project: Approx: $600,000
Letter of Credit Proceeds(From original $3m LOC from RTC) $1,500,000.


I hope this helps to clarify your questions below.


Diana

More troubling still, is while all that was being before the council, an unannounced, in the background set of shadow dealings and pronouncements and inducements were being made by Landform which were material to the decision making of whether or not to buy the farm. And some of those making that multi-million dollar decision were being deliberately excluded from material information that might impact a decision - that some officials were considering not merely taking title and waiting, but were aggressively dealing with a single firm in relative secret to do otherwise and to pay that firm in the process.

Some city officials were in contact with Landform before the purchase closed. Others were kept in the dark until first learning of the Landform connection at a meeting where they were asked to vote on what then was represented as a twenty-three thousand one-shot contract. Times and terms change, and the changes were most fortuitous for Landform and its key people.

Since I give the link, go back, read that post - again, here.

It could help some decision making on election day to read it and think things over.

Aside from that, as Lund said, eight million and some change was "abated." Look was part of that pair of votes - the initial abatement, and roughly a year or so later, abatement of the interest. In simple term

CITY OF RAMSEY TAXES, ASSESSEMTS AND INTEREST = NOT PAID OFF

Any questions, children?

.........................................

Now, Matt, sorry, I forget --- what was the balance of your question aside from the city taxes you smugly but wrongly claimed were paid off from "proceeds of the sale?"

_______________FURTHER UPDATE____________
My meter just unpegged again. Was the third Look email saying that some part of city taxes on the badlands was "paid" in the account juggling? That only about nine million of assessments were "abated" but taxes were "paid" with that meaning shifted from reserves, into Minnwest's phantom hands, and then paid back over to Ramsey but not back into the reserve account they came from, but into the current account, as if general revenue and not a shift of reserves into general funds so that the pool of general funds was artificially goosed up from reserves, so that current expenses could in part be paid out of reserves (once the transaction pattern was collapsed) thus, "balancing the budget" only by moving some reserves by shell game moves out of reserves and into current general funds? I will send Look an email asking him to respond; whether I understand or misunderstand what was done, in substance, collapsing all things in between to "where reserves ended up moved into general funds to make stuff look balanced, but not so otherwise, absent such shifting of Ramsey reserve money around?" If he emails an answer I shall post it.