The bid came in lower than the engineering department's estimate, with the contract reported to be for $2,342,826. Sakry reports "The total cost of the project, including the acquisitions on three parcels, is approximately $5,627,000." The lion's share is then approximately $3,284,000, for buying land. Reporting did not dlsclose how that will be handled without causing a tax increase. Or further bonding debt. Construction financing, itself, was reported by Sakry:
Anoka County will be paying for about $1.7 million of the project cost and the city will by paying for its portion using $2,801,533 from its equipment revolving fund, tax increment financing from District 2, storm water utility fund, water utility fund, sanitary sewer utility fund, Economic Development Authority funds and street light utility fund.
The city will also be using $500,000 in excess rail funding, which resulted because of the Ramsey Northstar Rail station bids came in lower than expected, and a $500,000 Local Road Improvement Project (LRIP) grant from the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Funds appear to be juggled around somewhat, in order to pay out money without another bonding round like that done for indulging Flaherty. Anticipated land acquisition costs explains why the city foresees paying $2,801,533 (an amount exceeding the full contract price for the actual work). The lion's share going to property acquisition. Strangely, before this year's elections the City is binding itself for a contract impacting land it does not now own. Moreover,
Elvig is concerned about the timing of the project.
While the city received a really good bid for the construction, he is concerned about how much money the council is pulling from city utility and TIF funds and what level it will leave in those fund pools, he said.
The city has put a lot of money into The COR and [...] “We don’t even have letters of intent (in the COR) and here we go plowing into another project,” he said.
Elvig offered an amendment to the contract motion to have the road project delayed until more land development occurs.
The amendment was defeated.
Jeff Wise is entitled, of course, to negotiate as best he can for a buyout of his present liquor store location and for a relocation and I believe such negotiations have been ongoing from well before this contract was awarded.
By the start of next year Wise may or may not remain on council.
Shifting funds and using reserves arguably reflects an unrealistic dogma afoot about avoiding raising of the tax levy rate, whether that would be most prudent or not in terms of the long term fiscal health of the city, etc.
This is so, while the present council is doing all kinds of stuff and running up bond debt to gamble on the outcome of the Flaherty adventure. Whether that money is paid back or not will depend on whether Flaherty can rent that stuff or not, and whether, for instance, Flaherty's personal guarantee will be worth enough should resort to it be needed.
Another matter. As best as I can presently determine, Emily McGlone, wife of Councilmember Colin McGlone, has been working as a project clerk, (I believe that is the job title), for Flaherty (and/or his general contractor - I am unsure of detail as to who or what entity issues paychecks, and in what amount). McGlone handles job duties out of the Flaherty project trailers, south side of Veterans Drive, at the land Flaherty is using. I am aware McGlone duties involve dealing with subcontractors when the project manager is not on site, as I observed that with McGlone and an electrical contractor. I have sent email requests concerning employment detail, and hope for and anticipate helpful and thorough replies, sometime in the next few days.
I am informed and believe that City Attorney Goodrich procured some form of opinion memorandum from the League of Minnesota Cities prior to the McGlone - Flaherty employment and I have emailed a public data disclosure request to the City Attorney to attempt to secure a copy of such a memorandum. I also have requested by email that the McGlones provide the document, presuming they would hold a copy and have reviewed it before the McGlone - Flaherty employment contract papers were signed and the job started. I anticipate I shall be provided the memorandum some time within the week of July 8, as a reasonable time for a response.
I intend to publish more, as I learn more of the facts concerning that employment.
NOTE: Requests are pending on several fronts, and if I encounter stonewalling, that will be reported.
Obviously, if there's nothing to hide there is no need to stonewall, so I do not anticipate it. What I believe I am seeing at present is merely a collective need to attend first to other matters.
I believe that there should be no feeling on the part of persons facing an information request to believe the facts once revealed would, per se, be unfavorable. Unless they already know something I do not.
Because surrounding facts not yet public knowledge might be relevant to members of the electorate, no sensible person with nothing to hide (and wanting an informed electorate) would stonewall.
If I do encounter stonewalling, that is something I will report and something I believe would speak for itself.
But I anticipate good faith responses, as that is the proper first step toward knowing detail of events and understandings. Certainly I can always publish what my inquiries have been, and if they go unanswered readers are adult and experienced enough to draw their own conclusions.
___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Emily McGlone told me face-to-face that her Flaherty employment dated back at least to end of May, early June. Contract papers, if released, would give an exact signing date, and several weeks before that would be needed for Cronk to have first discussed the thing with Flaherty interests before offering; and then time to decide on an "interview" as was claimed. So that would place beginnings at early to mid May, unless the McGlone statement to me was her representing when things to her awareness began, which she said was when Cronk spoke to her of the opening, as hers if she wanted it but conditioned upon final decision by others.
Why Cronk was in this, AT ALL, and what previous discussions he may have had with Colin McGlone before Emily was in the loop; your guess is as good as mine so long as relevant and material information is being withheld from public awareness and judgment. I remain available, at a time and place convenient to the McGlone spouses to further discuss the situation, or to review whatever documents they hold. Emily McGlone said they'd "cleared things with the lawyers" before she took Flaherty employment, but was vague if not evasive, yet volunteering "there was an LMC opinion" which neither Goodrich nor the McGlones have yet provided me despite emails to each requesting a copy be provided me. Surely, as other matters compelling their attention get resolved and there is time enough, neither will stonewall me. I eagerly await seeing this purported sanitizing document.
Justice Brandeis back in 1914 did say "Sunshine is the best disinfectant," and the sun shines every day; as days pass and the primary nears. All that is needed is exposing a few papers or so to that sunshine and its beneficent effects.
Interestingly, Brandeis delivered that familiar phrase within an item titled, "Other People's Money." Don't take my word for it. Look it up.