The Crookston City Council met on Monday night and had tense moments after Councilman Clayton Briggs pulled a resolution to transfer $150,000 to the Crookston Housing and Economic Development Authority from the consent agenda. Monday’s meeting showed not all Council Members knew what they were voting on at last week’s Ways & Means Committee meeting when they voted to provide $150,000 towards a $250,000 loan requested by Epitome Energy from the Crookston Housing and Economic Development Authority (CHEDA).
Councilman Clayton Briggs asked Craig Hoiseth, Executive Director for CHEDA, whether the $150,000 was a loan to CHEDA. Hoiseth, who didn’t submit a request for the money but was present at the meeting last week, said he understood it was to be a transfer of money. Briggs, who doesn’t regularly attend CHEDA meetings didn’t understand why the money was going to CHEDA and not “Eptone” (Epitome) Energy asking, “why isn’t it going to [Epitome] instead of to CHEDA?”. Councilman Jake Fee said he made the motion with the understanding that if the City and CHEDA both gave money on the loan request, it would require two business subsidy agreements. “I made the motion with the understanding that you have to have a business subsidy on it,” said Fee. “So, if we gave $150,000 and CHEDA gave $100,000 you’d have to have two business subsidies. You’re just doubling it up. This was our transfer to give to CHEDA for Epitome for one business subsidy agreement.”
Briggs also asked if the money would come back if Epitome Energy fell through. Hoiseth said it does not unless the CHEDA Board opted not to provide the subsidy. Mayor Guy Martin also questioned the accuracy of the Ways & Means Committee agenda for August 19, which stated Epitome Energy Loan Request. “In the Special Ways & Means Committee meeting on Monday, August 19, 2019, the first item on the agenda, which the council voted on, is an Epitome Energy Loan Request,” said Martin. “So, it’s not a loan?”
Hoiseth said he believed the City Administrator had written a recommendation as a forgivable loan, but there was no recommendation provided by City Staff. Martin then questioned why Hoiseth, who didn’t make the request, didn’t make them privy to the information about the transfer vs. the loan. Fee said he’s not sure where the loan request on the agenda came from because he’d never requested it as a loan. He added he thought the discussion was pretty clear during last week’s meeting. “I’m the one that put in the request to transfer some money to CHEDA,” said Fee. “I didn’t ever say loan when I requested it to be on Ways & Means. I thought the discussion was pretty clear during that meeting.”
Councilman Bobby Baird also stated it was requested as a transfer of funds, to which Martin replied, “It was clear as mud to me. I read the agenda, and I expected this to be a loan to them.”
Martin seemed to believe the city should have a separate loan to Epitome from CHEDA for the same request. Briggs also stated they always hear things after the fact when giving CHEDA money. Councilman Steve Erickson said not attending CHEDA meetings makes it pretty hard to be apprised of what is going on and where they are going. Briggs stated he’d missed one or two before stating he thought the transfer should go back to Ways & Means. Martin then started to say the money was falsely represented on the agenda before saying he was in charge of the agenda when asked by Jake Fee. “Are you not in charge of the Ways and Means agenda?” asked Fee. Martin responded, “yes.” And Fee said he doesn’t understand where the falsely was in there. “My request was to transfer $75,000 out of each of those two funds, period. I don’t care about a piece of paper.”
Councilman Dale Stainbrook also said that he didn’t think they should take $75,000 of the $150,000 designated to come out of the Valley Technology Fund. He said he believed the additional $75,000 should come from the $350,000 previously transferred to CHEDA. None of the other councilmen outright disagreed with that premise, but Councilman Tom Vedbraaten did ask Hoiseth if he had a problem with that. Hoiseth stated that would be a board decision and said he felt the context of the discussion was inappropriate. He also addressed the possible Code of Conduct violation by the Martin in referring to being called falsifying and not making the council privy to information despite the transfer discussion being generated, discussed and approved within the council. “That’s a board decision, Tom,” said Hoiseth. “I feel that the context of the discussion is very inappropriate. Being called falsifying, that’s really tragic. I never requested, CHEDA never requested this money. CHEDA has not requested this money. It came from a City Council discussion at a previous Ways & Means previous to the last one. It was originated at City Council, not from CHEDA. I didn’t make the documents. I didn’t make the Ways & Means agenda. I didn’t create this resolution. We are very much in favor of the council doing this action, but this is not an action originated from CHEDA. It originated from the Council.”
The resolution to transfer $150,000 to CHEDA then passed with a 6 to 1 vote, with Briggs the only nay vote. Fee called the discussion unfortunate, saying created miscommunication since the last meeting because it was pretty clear they were transferring funds in the previous meeting. “I thought we had it all pretty much ironed out at our last Ways & Means meeting,” said Fee. “Really was pretty clear that we were transferring over $75,000 from the Valley Technology fund and $75,000 out of the Building, Land fund to go over to CHEDA. Then loans and other things were brought up. That’s really not our job. Our job was to transfer some money over to our EDA, and they’ll work out the details of it. Something happened in some miscommunication from the last meeting to this meeting that caused a lot of confusion, and I’m not sure what else. It was pretty unfortunate that we had that tonight.”
Martin said after the meeting, he was only questioning the wording on the agenda. Asked if he felt it had been resolved after reading the meeting report, Martin said, “not yet, but it will.”
Also pulled from the consent agenda was a resolution declaring the adequacy of a petition and order the preparation of a report for street improvements on Euclid Avenue from Guthrie Street to McKinley Boulevard by curb, gutter, and bituminous pavement. Stainbrook said he believed the street wasn’t doable at this point and it should be a moot point. Public Works Director Pat Kelly asked the council to table the item for the next meeting so he could check state statute. Kelly said he believed they were required to hold a public hearing on an adequate petition before making any decisions, which the council agreed to do.
The rest of the consent agenda passed unanimously, which included approval of the August 12 council minutes, and the acceptance of Cindy Gjerswold’s resignation and declaration of a vacancy. Other resolutions included partial payment to R & Q Trucking, Inc for $284,792.95, partial payment for the airport fuel system project for $21,654.95, approval of bills and disbursements totaling $192,092.46, approval of a variance submitted by APG Development, and the disbursement of $23,000 in funds from the Small Cities Development Funds for a project at True Value.
The regular agenda had just one item. It was a resolution accepting a gift of lots five and six on block nine of Jerome’s Addition. Those lots were referred to in previous Ways & Means Committee and Planning Commission meetings as 110 Lincoln. Vedbraaten asked if the lot size, 50 x 120, was enough room to build and if it was possible for someone to rebuild the current home. City Administrator Shannon Stassen said the lot is considered buildable by City Code but that the existing structure was beyond repair and would require demolition.
During the Crookston Forum, Bob Prudhomme asked the council if any councilmen had been to a facility similar to what Epitome Energy was proposing to see how much dust and noise there was as well as what the odor was. Stainbrook said it would probably be a good idea for some of the council to go see one and that Prudhomme’s questions would be good to ask during Epitome Energy’s public meeting September 5. Prudhomme added he is in favor of the plant, he just has some questions because he remembers they used to build plants outside of town because of odor, noise, and dust. “My main concerns were if somebody from the city or council went to a similar facility to check the odor of the plant, noise level, and dust put out into the air to keep the community happy without to much noise, dust, and odor,” said Prudhomme. “I was to older plants years ago, I realize technology has changed, and some of those plants had a pretty strong odor and were pretty dirty. I know in the 70s and 80s they proposed similar plants, but they were never right in the city. They were 5-15 miles out of town. I’m not against it by all means. It’s good for the community, the farmers, the city. But I would like to have some answers on the odor, the dust, the noise, and how they are going to handle that.”
Tags:
