A friend who gives presentations during the comment portion of the Cook County commissioners’ board meetings wanted me to listen to WTIP Radio where on Wednesday, Feb. 15, Jay Andersen interviewed Commissioner Doo-Kirk.
The commissioner claimed that the taxpayers who speak during the comment period of their meetings are using mostly opinions and not facts in their comments. She also stated commissioners do their homework. Is this the same homework assignment commissioners used for the business park and YMCA? I’m afraid commissioners failed both assignments. Even the golf course is not the revenue producer as planned.
They should have known that almost all the statements I referred to in my comments were taken from the commissioners’ draft of the abatement, resolution, outside sources and Minnesota statutes. Does this mean that the abatement draft and resolution is just an opinion and not factual?
I started by asking commissioners what would happen if the occupancy (at the EDA/One Roof Housing project in Lutsen) was 50 percent instead of the county’s pro forma estimate at 93 percent. Was the county’s pro forma a factual reference or just an opinion?
I asked the board why the school board declined the county’s request to abate the district’s property taxes to assist in the development of this project. A copy of the resolution from the school board was found in the information packet the commissioners provided. Was that draft from the school board an opinion or fact?
I asked the board, “What are all the county’s total liabilities or obligations in this project?” When Jay Andersen asked a similar question, Doo-Kirk did not give any real quantitative answer other than if there were problems, the county would be third on the list to pay.
Concerning One Roof Housing being a safety buffer to the taxpayer before taxpayers would have to pay on the yearly bond payments, Commissioner Doo- Kirk stated, “One Roof Housing would have to not be able to pay back the debt, and with One Roof Housing’s assets and credit, they would pretty much have to go out of business.”
Bob Tofte (legal counsel) stated on Jan. 24 (1:05:15) that One Roof’s obligation was that, “They were obligated to pay out of sources of funds from the project as well as their other sources of funds.” Those are two grossly different propositions. Well, one would have to wonder which one was fact and which one was an opinion.
I went on to refer to Section 3 of the resolution provided in the Jan. 24 board packet, available on the county’s website. Minnesota Statute 469.184 was used as the legal basis to issue this bond, and it is quite lengthy so that I will share the reference to housing in MN Statute 469.184, Subd. 7. Housing and redevelopment as agent. “A housing and redevelopment authority of a city or county may exercise any and all of the powers confirmed by this section on behalf of a city if the city by ordinance authorizes it.” At the meeting, I pointed out that the statute referenced concerns only and did not state that funds may be used for residential housing or new construction. Evidently, this Minnesota statute is basically opinion and not law.
I also said that the process for establishing a tax abatement resolution must include four points. This information was taken directly from the Ehlers, Inc. website. Ehlers is a leader in public financing and investments. Their factual statements must just be their opinion.
I do apologize and must admit that I did summarize one paragraph of my presentation out of six paragraphs with an opinion which also contained some facts.
Finally, I am one of many taxpayers who speak during the comments at board meetings who have ample sources to prove their statements. We have to do all the research without consultants. The problem is that none of the commissioners have ever asked for the facts. The bulk of their information comes from highly paid, outside consultants.
As constituents, all we do is pay the commissioners’ wages and benefits so why should they ask our opinions? Evidently, they were never elected to listen to the opinions of the people who put them in office.
Taxpayers are not allowed to ask questions to any commissioner at a county board meeting; they can only give facts or opinions. Near the end of the interview, Doo-Kirk indicated that the board was very comfortable with their homework and seemed to be speaking for all board members. That opinion comes from the same commissioner who was interviewed on WTIP in December who stated that lowering the tax levy to 9.9 percent from the proposed 19.88 percent would cost between 8-10 county employees their jobs. When the levy was only raised to 11.21 percent and not 19.88 percent (only 1.31 percentage points higher) not one county employee was laid off. Her statement, instead of fact, must have been just her opinion.
Jim Vannet
Hovland
Leave a Reply