votewojcik.org

The Rochester Downtown Masterplan Advisory Committee meetings will now be public. It always bothered me that neighborhoods were never given a seat.  It also bothered me that these meetings were not open to the public.  This group appearently opposed the Heritage Preservation Ordinance, but I could not get minutes when I asked and one of the members didn’t even know there was a meeting.  I asked to make this public at the last council meeting and staff has agreed.  I also asked years ago and was told “no.”  Progress…

The group can and should have the option to close meetings if they are talking about projects where a developer is entitled to privacy.

I did not attend the March 18 Council meeting.  I did review the video archive that discussed Rochester Downtown Master Plan (RDMP) Advisory  Committee meetings.  The RDMP Advisory Committee was established to assure that progress was being made on plan recommendations and to provide a forum for the exchange of information between the parties that participated in the preparation of the plan (City, Mayo, UMR, RDA and RAF).    Because this Committee was not appointed by the Council, there was no legal requirement to open meetings to the public – it was left to the discretion of the members.  I have spoken to nearly all of the Committee members during the past week.   They have no objection to opening the meetings.

The RDMP Advisory Committee meets bi-monthly on the 2^nd Wednesday of the month.  Our next regularly scheduled meeting will be May 8^th.  I will provide the Clerk’s office with the appropriate notice prior to the meeting.   I assume that this eliminates the need for a Committee of the Whole discussion, if not, please let me know and will coordinate a time with Steve.  Doug

Here are some bills that affect Rochester at the State Legislature.  Do you have any feedback for me?  These are draft city positions, so I am just looking for input.

Listed below are a number of bills that the City is following in this legislative session. I will list them briefly and if you need or want any additional information on the City views on these bills please contact me and I, Councilmembers or other staff will be happy to discuss them with you. It is only my intent at this time to flag some of the bills of main interest for the City and not provide all the details and arguments pro and con for the bills. Many of the bills most beneficial to the City have been introduced by or have authors from Rochester. We sincerely appreciate your support.

The City is a member of the League of Minnesota Cities and Coalition of Greater Minnesota cities organizations. We are in contact with those organizations and have been working with those organizations throughout the session. To date I do not believe the City of Rochester has any positions on bills that are contrary to the positions being taken by those organizations Thanks to all of you for your help and work on behalf of the City this session.

1. MCC Bonding (HF `185 Norton, Liebling, Hausman SF 342 Senjem Nelson) and Lodging Tax Change (HF 297 Liebling, SF 1406 Senjem). We appreciate and request your support on these bills. In addition to the City, both these bills are supported by the RCVB, Chamber and Mayo. The expanded MCC is an anchor facility for the DMC Initiative.
2. DMC Legislation (HF 409 Norton, Davids, M Benson, Liebling, Quam, Mahoney, Daudt and 6 others, SF 343 Senjem, Skoe, Nelson, Schmidt, Sparks). The City has been in close cooperation and coordination with Mayo on this vitally important legislation throughout this session. This is a critical bill for Minnesota and the Rochester Area.
3. LGA. HF 1608. Recently all the various City organizations (LMC, CGMC, Metro Cities) and Minneapolis and St. Paul, have reached agreement on a revised LGA formula for the distribution of LGA funding including the Governor’s recommended $80 million in additional funding. It is believed that this revised formula could work and be applied for at least several subsequent years. The impacts of this formula and the requested $80 million in new LGA funding, after many years of reductions, are very favorable for the cities in Senate Districts 25 and 26. You will be receiving letters and resolutions of support for this new formula and the $80 million in funding from many of those cities. For Rochester it would mean an increase of $1.8 million over our 2013 LGA amount of $5.1 million. We would note that Rochester was scheduled to receive over $11 million in LGA in 2003. We ask your support of the new formula and for the $80 million in additional LGA.
4. CGMC Economic Development Bills. The CGMC has worked with Senate and House Authors to introduce several bills that would increase economic development and jobs in Greater Minnesota. These bills include:
   -the Angel Investment Tax Credit bill (SF 285 Sen. Carla Nelson, Koenen, Rosen, Rest, Gazelka HF 1228 M. Benson, Gunther, Abeler), which the City is very interested in for future biobusiness and other business start-ups in Rochester;
   -a Jobs Training bill;
   -HF 331 Norton, Davids, Dorholt, Mahoney, et al SF 241 Eken, Sheran, Tomassoni, Miller, Fischbach. A bill to provide a tax credit equal to 40% of the internship for Minnesota college students.
   -a new Economic Development Bill that provides a modified replacement for JobZ (HF 1578 Savick, Dill, Howe SF 1451 Jensen, Schmidt, Koenen, J. Pederson), which is scheduled to expire in 2015.
5. Energy Bills – Impacts on Municipal Electric Utilities. There are some provisions included within the omnibus energy bills that are very concerning to municipal electric and coop electric utilities. Some of the provisions of concern include a solar mandate, a 1% fee to subsidize solar installations anywhere in the State, and the State setting the rate paid for solar. RPU and the City are concerned about the impact of these provisions and, if you have questions, we would be happy to discuss the bill with you. Larry Koshire and Joe Hensel of RPU are the best contacts on these bills.
6. Election Bills – Removal of Deceased Candidates Name (SF 90 Senjem, HF 122 Norton, Sanders, Simon). The City has worked with the LMC and local authors to introduce a bill to enable the withdrawal of a deceased candidate’s name within certain time periods. It is my understanding this provision is moving forward successfully to date and will be included in the Omnibus Election bill.
7. Special Services District and Housing Improvement Districts Expiration Removed (SF 212 Franzen, Senjem, Nelson, Rest, Scalze HF 350 Yarusso, M. Benson, Nelson, Bernardy, Laine). This bill is progressing in the House and Senate and is an LMC effort. The City currently has and has had a special services district in the downtown to provide funding for the activities of the RDA (additional funding is provided by the City and Mayo) since 2006. No new special services districts can be established under current law after 2014. This language is somewhat ambiguous and may apply if the City later wants to extend the life of the existing district beyond its current expiration in 2015. There are provisions in the current law that will remain for annual hearings and notifications to affected property-owners for each year of the district. The Downtown Special Services District has been, as you know, very effective and beneficial in joint marketing and the creation of events in the downtown that have increased business activity. At the annual hearings since 2007 there have been no property-owner objections to the Special Services District and the additional tax payment for those RDA services.
8. Exemption of City/County From State Sales Tax Bill (SF 329 Senjem, Ortman, Nelson, Benson HF295 Zerwas Hertaus and 5 others). City and County Governments became subject to paying the State sales tax in about 1991, as budget deficit revenue raising idea. Prior to that local governments were exempt based on the belief that it did not make a lot of sense for one layer of government to pay a tax to the higher layer. Several years ago the City calculated the annual sales tax cost paid by the City organization to the State at over $1 million annually.
9. Street Improvement District Bill (SF 607 Carlson, J Pederson, Senjem, Dibble, Rest HF 745 Erhardt, Hornstein, Gunther, Thorkelson, Bly). This is an LMC supported bill which the City also supports. If enacted it would provide an additional and improved method to undertake road construction, reconstruction and maintenance to address this critical infrastructure.
10. Highway 14 4 Lane Construction Owatonna to Rochester (HF 1107 Quam, Norton, Liebling, M. Benson, Petersburg SF 808 Senjem). Requests $160 million in trunk Highway Bonds to construct Highway 14 as a four lane.
11. Transportation Economic Study Related to the DMC (HF 1234 M. Benson, Quam SF 1047 Senjem). Would provide $175,000 for a MNDOT/ROCOG study of transportation needs related to the DMC
12. Online Homework Help Bill (SF 781 Hoffman, Johnson, Stumpf, Nelson, Jensen HF 1145 Brynaert, S. Erickson). On line help can be provided by public libraries, school libraries and other libraries. Supported by City of Rochester Library. Cost $750,000 2014, $600,000 2015.
13. Funding for 3rd Judicial District Drug Court HF 810 Norton, Liebling, M. Benson, Quam, SF 1020 Senjem, Nelson. Funding provided to start a drug court in District Court.
14. Funding for Local Roads and Bridges of Statewide Significance (HF 226 Norton, SF 295 Tomassoni, J. Pederson, Dibble, Rest, Senjem. Would provide $84 million for these improvements.
15. Annexation Bills. The City is not seeking nor supporting any annexation law changes this session.
16. Email Addresses Privacy Bill (SF 60 Scalze HF 20 Frieberg). The LMC has sponsored a bill that would protect citizens who contact the City to be on lists for crime alerts, or project information or emergency alerts from having their email address and phone numbers disclosed to third parties that use that information to contact them. Several cities, including Rochester, had individuals who contacted the City to request all the emails addresses and phone information that the City system had received. These contacts were thousands of email addresses per community. This bill would prevent that and the City supports that as it is an intrusion on citizens who did not anticipate that their contacting the City would disclose their email and phone data to others and it is very costly and time consuming to provide this information.
17. Non Profit Properties Exempted from City fees and service charges HF 781 M. Nelson , Marquardt, Davids, Loon, Dill – SF 1050 Eaton, Rest, Senjem ). This bill is opposed by the LMC and city organizations. It would exempt public charity institutional property from a broad range of potential fees such as storm water, street light utility, potentially assessments and others shifting those costs to other property-owners. It would create inequity in applying City costs and fees by favoring one group of property-owners. The bill would apply broadly to any fees or charges of the City.

I expect that there will be many edits to this post as I respond to additional questions.

Today I was fortunate enough to serve on a panel with John Wade (Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce), State Sen. Carla Nelson, Gary Smith (RAEDI), and Kathleen Harrington (Mayo Government Relations).  The focus of the session was on economic development and specifically Destination Medical Center (DMC).  The event was hosted by Cube.  You can find a replay on their blog.

I always like to preface the discussion of some of the minutia with the big picture.  Here is a quote from me.

“When you talk about #DMCMN you are talking about one of the greatest opportunities of our lifetimes.” – @votewojcik

I am 100% committed to have the best medical community in the world.  It’s my job to make sure we do it right.

Here are some of the questions asked / thoughts articulated in the forum.  To summarize; the big issues were transparency, conflict of interest, public involvement, government role in infrastructure, and eminent domain.

Transparency

There were a number of questions around transparency.  I have a unique perspective on this as I also didn’t have a view as to what was going on as the concept evolved.

I don’t claim to be an attorney, but here is my understanding after questioning the city attorney.

In my discussions with staff as a representative of the public interest I asked some pretty direct questions as I wanted to make sure there were going to be no smoke filled rooms with the DMC authority.  What I did learn was that authority meetings would be subject to the Minnesota Open Meetings Law.  This ensures that all meetings are open to the public (unless closed for certain legal reasons).  In addition, emails between a quorum of the members would be illegal.  Further, emails exchanged in a serial manner (I sent to you, you send to John Doe, etc.) are also illegal.  In short you get to see the decision making process play out in public.

The DMC Authority would also be subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act.  As such internal documents and email would be would be provided to any member of the public upon request.

Do these guarantee transparency, no, but it does go a long way.  Only honest leadership can provide true transparency.  I was the only city councilmember to insist on citizen representation and open meetings for the Downtown Masterplan Implementation Committee, and as such those meetings continue in secret.

Independent Leadership / Conflict of Interest:

One of my early concerns was conflicts of interest, but that seems to be moving in the right direction.  The initial version of the law would have had all 3 people representing Rochester on the DMC Authority actually employed by or receiving a pension from the Mayo Clinic.  I expressed some concern about this, but the city administrator told me that I was the only person on the city council that had a problem with this.  As it turns out some leaders at the state agreed with me and this is now being changed.  It never made sense to me that a Mayo employee should negotiate for the best interests of the community across the table from their employer.

Question from Travis:

Mayo has the name branding of John Hopkins and the Cleveland Clinc, but this town is not Clev or Balt, hell MPLS is not either. how does anyone think this will work? size and infra is just not here to compete at that level.

More coming…

I voted against staff’s plan to authorize $5 million in distributions to surrounding communities but lost the decision by a 5-1 ( ) vote.  I think this decision represents bad policy and bad finance.  Here is why.  I’m not necessarily against regional investments, but the way this was done was underhanded, incompetent, and inconsistent.  Rep. Greg Davids is the individual most responsible for the poor policy.  Read the rest of this entry »

Words can’t express how disgusted I am at this.  This is dirty campaigning at its sleaziest.  The fact that much of what is in this letter is not true is besides the point.  Bottom line is that this is what my opponent stands for.  I believe that the reality is that the neighborhood action was cooked up by 3 or 4 people on the board as a political stunt.  This pretty much proves it.  BTW We first learned of this action only 14 hours before it was posted in a political blog.  And for the record we were never once engaged by these 4.

I am not sure about Bob Dahl, but the other three names on this note have all had “Pruett” signs in their yard.  This note went to someone that had previously supported me and then changed their mind.  I am especially insulted because the Pruett attack goes after my family and my home not just me.  The fact that these individuals have publicly attacked my wife now will not be discounted.

From: Mike Pruett <mltgroupmike@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: hello
To: “Julie XXXXXX” <XXXXXX@XXX.com>
Date: Saturday, November 3, 2012, 4:15 PM

Victoria Clíby
Tripp Welch
Loren Wendroth
Bob Dahl

The City of Rochester gets a solid victory over Rochester City Lines.  Judge Chase rules that Rochester did not take anything from Dan Holter or Rochester City Lines.

Judge Chase also ruled 100% in my favor. I did not defame Dan Holter in any way.

I believe that the obviously frivolous law suit that was filed against me was an attempt to intimidate and silence a strong, fiscally responsible city leader or to score political points.  That intent failed just like the lawsuit.  Will RCL waste more taxpayer money with an appeal?  We shall see…

Needless to say, I am pleased with the result.  I am also happy that the resolution was much faster than I expected.

Did you know that Rochester’s Public Library is the busiest in the state of Minnesota?  Did you know that our Bookmobile by itself would be the 4th busiest library in Southeastern Minnesota?

Times are challenging right now yet the city council just purchased a new $385,000 Bookmobile (this included all consulting, design, travel, etc.). This does have all the bells and whistles.  The drive train is Hybrid electric / clean diesel, some power is generated by a solar array.  With the batteries and solar, thousands of hours of idling will be avoided.  Everything on the vehicle is heavy duty to ensure a 20 year life.

Was this a good investment?

I think so, but lets study the issue.

Our old bookmobile was pretty well shot, with heavy usage comes heavy abuse.  Most library systems that approach the size of the Rochester Public Library begin to open new locations.  The problem is that in tough times they are hard to close.  Further; population and demographics can change significantly over time.  With the Bookmobile we get 77 other locations, admittedly with more limited service.  Because we are a AAA rated city we can bond at about 3% right now.  This means that if we amortized the vehicle cost over its life it cost us less than $26,000 per year.  Basically we get 77 library locations in a state of the art, efficient vehicle for less than the cost of a custodian at a branch location.  The vehicle also gives us the ability to target areas that need access to materials the most, even if those areas change.

In my opinion staff at the Rochester Public Library did a great job in looking out for the best interests of the city.  What do you think?

My only position on this is that I don’t maintain the site, all information was added based on information from the city that this posed no issue.  If the city wants to take down any information they are welcome to.  This is an issue to be resolved between the Tea Party and the City.  I am staying out of it.  The contact information has been there for years, so the fact that this is suddenly an issue is just another Tea Party stunt.  If you don’t like negative campaigning remember that this is coming from my opponents campaign team.

Thank you for your message.

Although the City’s Home Rule Charter does not allow me to render formal legal opinions to members of the public, I can provide you with a general, informal answer to your question.  I have received other inquiries on this issue from citizens and the news media.  I will give you the same information I gave to those folks.

Minn. Stat. §10.60 prohibits a “Web site” from containing a link to a “Weblog or site maintained by a candidate.”  That state law, in section 10.60, subd.1(4), defines “Web site” to be a site maintained on the World Wide Web “that is maintained with public money by an elected or appointed official of a state agency or political subdivision.”  Note that this definition does NOT apply to a site on the World Wide Web maintained with public money by a political subdivision.  Instead, this definition only applies to a site on the World Wide Web maintained with public money “by an elected or appointed official” of a political subdivision.

The City of Rochester website is maintained by public money, but it is not maintained by an elected or appointed official.  It is maintained by the municipal corporation known as the “City of Rochester.”  As such, it is unclear whether the City of Rochester website falls within the definition of “Web site” found in subdivision 1(4).  I checked for any Attorney General Opinions and court cases that address this issue.  I found none.  Thus, there is uncertainty as to whether this law applies to the City’s website.

There is a second area of uncertainty.  The state law allows a Web site to “include biographical information about an elected or appointed official” along with a photograph, Webcasts, and audio and video files “that facilitate access to information or services or inform the public about the duties and obligations of the office.”  The link to Councilmember Wojcik’s website contains such information.  I understand the Councilmember’s website contains other information beyond biographical information, and ward councilmember duties and obligations.  But, the law does not tell us whether the presence of information in addition to biographical and office information defeats this exception.  Again, I checked for Attorney General opinions and court cases for guidance, but found none.

For these reasons, it is not clear whether this state law applies to the City’s policy allowing elected officials to determine how they wish to be contacted by their constituents who access the City maintained web page in order to contact their elected representatives.

Terry Adkins

From: ALAN and CINDY MAVES [mailto:amaves@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 10:51 AM
To: Scherr, Judy; Adkins, Terry; Staver, Randy; Bilderback, Mark
Subject: Election law on Websites

Mr Adkins,

I have been looking on the Election Laws site at the secretary of states office and came across the following.   See high light in yellow.  How does this apply to the Citys policy on allowing Mr Wojcik to link to his campaign page from the cities web site?

Cindy Maves

289-1052

10.60 PUBLIC WEB SITES AND PUBLICATIONS.

Subdivision 1. Definitions. For purposes of this section:

(1) “political subdivision” means a county, statutory or home rule charter city, town, school district, or other municipal corporation, and the Metropolitan Council and a metropolitan or regional agency;

(2) “publication” means a document printed with public money by an elected or appointed official of a state agency or political subdivision that is intended to be distributed publicly outside of the state agency or political subdivision;

(3) “state agency” means an entity in the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of state government; and

(4) “Web site” means a site maintained on the World Wide Web that is available for unrestricted public access and that is maintained with public money by an elected or appointed official of a state agency or political subdivision.

Subd. 2. Purpose of Web site and publications. The purpose of a Web site and a publication must be to provide information about the duties and jurisdiction of a state agency or political subdivision or to facilitate access to public services and information related to the responsibilities or functions of the state agency or political subdivision.

Subd. 3. Prohibitions. (a) A Web site or publication must not include pictures or other materials that tend to attribute the Web site or publication to an individual or group of individuals instead of to a public office, state agency, or political subdivision. A publication must not include the words “with the compliments of” or contain letters of personal greeting that promote an elected or appointed official of a state agency or political subdivision.

(b) A Web site, other than a Web site maintained by a public library or the election-related Web site maintained by the office of the secretary of state or the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, may not contain a link to a Weblog or site maintained by a candidate, a political committee, a political party or party unit, a principal campaign committee, or a state committee. Terms used in this paragraph have the meanings given them in chapter 10A, except that “candidate” also includes a candidate for an elected office of a political subdivision.

Subd. 4. Permitted material. (a) Material specified in this subdivision may be included on a Web site or in a publication, but only if the material complies with subdivision

2. This subdivision is not a comprehensive list of material that may be contained on a Web site or in a publication, if the material complies with subdivision 2.

(b) A Web site or publication may include biographical information about an elected or appointed official, a single official photograph of the official, and photographs of the official performing functions related to the office. There is no limitation on photographs, Webcasts, archives of Webcasts, and audio or video files that facilitate access to information or services or inform the public about the duties and obligations of the office or that are intended to promote trade or tourism. A state Web site or publication may include photographs or information involving civic or charitable work done by the governor’s spouse, provided that these activities relate to the functions of the governor’s office.

(c) A Web site or publication may include press releases, proposals, policy positions, and other information directly related to the legal functions, duties, and jurisdiction of a public official or organization.

(d) The election-related Web site maintained by the office of the secretary of state shall provide links to:

(1) the campaign Web site of any candidate for legislative, constitutional, judicial, or federal office who requests or whose campaign committee requests such a link and provides in writing a valid URL address to the office of the secretary of state; and

(2) the Web site of any individual or group advocating for or against or providing neutral information with respect to any ballot question, where the individual or group requests such a link and provides in writing a valid Web site address and valid e-mail address to the office of the secretary of state.

These links must be provided on the election-related Web site maintained by the office of the secretary of state from the opening of filing for the office in question until the business day following the day on which the State Canvassing Board has declared the results of the state general election, or November 30 of the year in which the election has taken place, whichever date is earlier. The link must be activated on the election related Web site maintained by the office of the secretary of state within two business days of receipt of the request from a qualified candidate or committee.

Subd. 5. Other standards. This section does not prohibit a state agency or political subdivision from adopting more restrictive standards for the content of a Web site or publication maintained by the agency or political subdivision.

Subd. 6. Enforcement. Violation of this section is not a crime and is not subject to civil penalty.

History: 2005 c 156 art 2 s 6; 2006 c 242 s 9, 10

Here is the report I filed today.

Michael Wojcik votewojcik@gmail.com

11:00 AM (0 minutes ago)

to county.attorney, ostrem.mark

Please confirm receipt of this document.

I would like to self report a violation of campaign finance law.  After receiving incorrect information from the city clerk (verified by the secretary of state’s office) I accepted 4 contributions of $500.00.  I received confirmation on September 5th that the limit should have been $300.00.  As of this morning I have bank initiated refunds of $200.00 to each of the 4 parties.  Two of the parties are my wife and I which I do not know if the same limits apply.  For confidentiality reasons I am not attaching the bank reference documents, however I will provide them to your office upon request.

I personally apologize for the error.  I believe in transparency and take personal responsibility for following all laws.  I feel it is my responsibility to report when I violate those laws, even when it is done unintentionally.

– Regards,

Michael Wojcik Rochester City Council – Ward 2

www.votewojcik.org

“We live in hard times, not end times.” – Jon Stewart

“No one is big enough to be independent of others” – Dr. Will Mayo

I received this note today.

To City of Rochester Ward Candidates –

I am writing to inform you of misinformation that I had previously received and conveyed to you as to the amount of contributions that you could receive from an individual toward your campaign.  When you applied for office, I told you that the contribution limit was $500.00 per person because we were a city over 100,000 people.  That information is not correct.  You may only receive no greater than $300.00 per person.  And remember that any contribution over $100 has to have the name of the individual reported on your Campaign Financial Report.

My previous information had come from the Secretary of State’s Office.  I have checked with my City Attorney as to the correct information.  On the back of the “Campaign Finance Report”  under Contribution Limits it states “candidates seeking election from districts in excess of 100,000 may not…”.  The 2010 Campaign Manual that I provided for each of you, under MS211A.12  says “an office whose territory has a population over 100,000 may not…”.

No candidate running for a ward seat has a territory over 100,000 population.  This only applies to the Councilmember-At-Large position.

For any city candidate who has accepted an individual amount over $300.00, you must repay the additional amount back to the contributor and make note of the payment as an expenditure on your next Campaign Financial Report.

I am extremely sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you but I am glad it was caught at this time.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.  Good luck with your campaigns.

Judy

Judy Scherr, City Clerk

201 4th Street S.E., Room 135

Rochester, Minnesota 55904

(507) 328-2911

(507) 328-2901 fax

jscherr@rochestermn.gov

2010 US Census Population – 106,769

While I have followed guidance from the MN Secretary of State’s Office, I am in the process of correcting an campaign finance error.  I will immediately refund all amounts over $300.00.  I will also self report this violation to the Minnesota Secretary of States office along with verification of refunds issued.  I feel that Judy is not to blame, but rather the staff at the State level.  What is especially frustrating is that after being told that the campaign limits are $500.00, I specifically read the materials and questioned whether it should be $300.00.  After I raised the question I was given specific assurance that the limits were $500.00.

I have always turned my reports in on time, with accurate and complete information.  I also turn in all the required reports.  Believe it or not not all people can say that…

I continue to believe that everyone must play by the same set of rules and will follow them at all times.

On a personal note (I really hate fundraising like every other elected official) and look forward to the day that we can have publicly financed clean elections.

In case you are wondering the questions on this came; it was from Cindy Maves (Rochester Tea Party Patriots).  As you would expect from such a group; rather than contacting me they contacted local media outlets.  Cindy Maves and the Tea Party Patriots are actively working for my opponent and we fully expected dirty campaign and gotcha tactics.  As you would expect in raising issues like this; my opponent is surely following all campaign finance laws, right…