The Crookston Housing and Economic Development Authority (CHEDA) Advisory Committee met on Tuesday morning at Valley Technology Park. On the agenda were two invoices for the air permitting process for the proposed Epitome Energy. The committee recommended paying one invoice but advise against paying an invoice for $10,000 to Egan Public Affairs.
Egan Public Affairs, a business of Dennis Egan, submitted an invoice for meetings in November and December with Wenck Associates, Sunde Engineering, Crown, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Commissioner of Agriculture Thom Peterson, and Minnesota First Stop. Under the terms of the loan agreement, such expenses are justifiable. However, members of the advisory committee didn’t support making the payment to Egan over concerns of optics. The committee voted unanimously not to recommend making the payment, but the invoice will still go before the entire CHEDA Board said Board President Kurt Heldstab. “The invoice we got was from Egan Public Affairs,” said Helstab. “That, we had some discussion on. Felt more discussion needed to be done, so we tabled that for right now. We’ll pass that onto the CHEDA Board and see what kind of decision they want to make.”
Nick Nicholas commented that this invoice should be part of Egan’s skin in the game. Craig Buness said I don’t think he’s brought any money into this yet, and we’re providing to get the air permitting started. Craig Morgan said he believed the CHEDA Board would agree with that view adding that his understanding was the loan was to pay bills and not Egan. Executive Director Craig Hoiseth said there is a four-to-one match with the Department of Agriculture for the air permitting and suggested that the $48,350 approved for air permitting in November and another $14,750 approved Tuesday morning that Egan might be able to get that paid through the matching funds. Acting Mayor Dale Stainbrook also expressed concern about the invoice not being itemized like other invoices. Hoiseth asked if it were itemized if it would change his view, and Stainbrook said probably not.
Hoiseth also told the committee he had told Egan he didn’t think the invoice would be well received and had asked him if he wanted to rescind it, but Egan did not as it’s a justifiable expense in the loan agreement. Heldstab said he was dead set against the payment, adding after the meeting that he believes some questions need to be answered. “Some of the conversation was looking at how he laid out the invoice working with Wenck and Sunde Engineering, who are the people doing the work for the permitting,” said Heldstab. “It got to be a question is Dennis working with them? Or what kind of information is he supplying them, any knowledge he is supplying them. We said we’re not sure about that, so let’s visit some more through the CHEDA Board. And hopefully, when we’ll have Dennis up shortly, we’ll visit with him and get some more information on what that invoice is really about.”
Leon Kremeier asked rhetorically, “who is retaining who? He came to us, and now we’re paying him? Or is this his company retaining him?” The other invoice of $14,750 from Industrial Process and Management Consultants for work on the air permitting was recommended unanimously. Heldstab said that recommendation would also go before the CHEDA Board next week. “We’ll move forward with that one,” said Heldstab. “That has to do with the air permitting, so we feel comfortable that the advisory committee moves it forward to the CHEDA Board to pay that.”
Hoiseth then provided the committee with updates on the City of Crookston state bonding request, relaying information from the January 9 meeting with Senator Mark Johnson and Representative Deb Kiel. “Wanted to give them an update as to when we met with Mark Johnson and Deb Kiel talking about the bonding at the legislature this year,” said Hoiseth. “Essentially, what we’re doing is going forward with a smaller bonding request trying to get in some infrastructure but not for the entire Epitome Energy project, things like Vertical Malt and the Innovation Center that would be located on the north end of that site.”
Hoiseth continued with an update from the Soy Innovation Campus board, which held its first meeting last week. Hoiseth explained that it’s possible the soy campus could be developed in phases. “It’s possible the innovation center develops in phases,” said Hoiseth. “Only having $4-5 million appropriated out of the gate gets you started, but it doesn’t get the whole thing done. It could be such a thing where we see them put a building on a parcel of land and then put up another building or two at a future date and join them together. Right now, we want to see them be successful, get some shovels in the ground, and see the momentum of the entire project starting to happen.”
The Soy Innovation Campus has also identified equipment to purchase for its small crush facility in Arkansas, according to Hoiseth, and the purchase and transportation of the equipment is expected to cost about $1.8 million.
