Yer sure, MN 13 is cited in the RFP, but big ditty, there are so many provisions in MN 13 that any could apply. No where in the RFP is MN 13.591 mentioned. So from a transparency and accountability perspective, the general public did not know the process would be closed and are effectively locked out from seeing the information.

Did the City Council know this process would be closed to the public? If I was a City Council member and I did not know, I would seriously question how much control I really had over the process. If a City Council did know, I would seriously question their integrity and commitment to the residents of Northfield.

The real problem Scott is the manner in which this has been run through the City without any thought for public input. For some to say we have had public input for the last several years is telling a joke. We have had cat fights between factions and just because some had their feelings hurt, the residents of Northfield are now being punished.

You can stop others from pushing this through so quickly. Just because some have spent the last two years frustrated over this process, does not mean that Northfield residents need to suffer from a lack of transparency and accountability for apparent gain of efficiency.

It makes sense that the City is protecting itself for the release of any information that might be considered private at the end of the process.

But that doesn’t mean the City can’t release basic proposal information now, does it?

I don’t understand how this would harm either those submitting proposals or the City to release the basic info of the proposals now. I do understand that once negotiations begin with one or more parties, that that process needs to be private until the end.

I don’t think the city should be making any decisions about a new liquor store right now! We don’t even have a permanent city administrator and our new council members aren’t sworn in. Why is there such a rush? It just seems to make an uneasy situation even worse.

“At the conclusion of the process” leaves what window for public input to your decision? I assume that you have a place to accept such before you vote on anything or before the selection is all but done?

Hope that helps clarify the issue.

It could be argued that as “the foregoing consent and waiver does not extend to financial statements submitted under a separate confidential cover”, than any part of a proposal WITHOUT a “separate confidential cover”, whether it is finance related or not, is public data. By implication, if FINANCIAL STATEMENTS are not under a “separate confidential cover”, than it is NOT sensitive data.

If the City wants to impose the letter of the law towards the general public during all other general business, than they bloody well need to be consistent.

I would argue the process is so compromised it should cease immediately. Perhaps an independent committee made up of residents with no connection to the City Government or future submitters should make a recommendation to the City Council before anymore City money is spent without accountability.

I volunteer my services to the City for free, and agree to be held accountable for any conflict of interest….if any.

http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/post/6715/#comments

[respondent] hereby consents to the release of its development proposal… and waives any claims it may have under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08 against the City of Northfield for making such information public.

That paragraph is in Appendix A, page 8 of the RFP.

 So the City seemingly CAN release all the proposals, minus any private business financial data.

You raise an interesting question and it speaks to the intent behind the RFP process. Not knowing all the reasons, as information from the City is very limited; it would seem the RFP process, combined with the real conflict of interests, makes this process very confusing and questionable.

The intent in 13.591 relates to privacy requirements for business data submitted through the RFP process under Subd.3 (b). Seeing the City is using MS 13.591 as a defense, I am now wondering the real intent behind the RFP process.

The written intent in the RFP states: “The City of Northfield is seeking proposals for the purchase or lease of property for a new municipal liquor store location”.

However, MN 13.591 is in the context of “business requesting financial assistance or a benefit financed by public funds”. In using MS 13.591, is the City saying they are partnering with a property owner to build the Muni? Is the City seeking to outsource the Muni or part of the operations? This would seem the case; however this intent is not clear in the RFP.

But let finish with public or nonpublic information. In asking for proposals, the City has included a “Consent for Release of Response of Data” and cited MS 13.08. The City includes this statement:

___________________________________, on behalf of ______________________,
hereby consents to the release of its development proposal in response to the
___________________________________ Request for Proposals and waives any claims it may have under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08 against the City of Northfield for making such information public. The foregoing consent and waiver does not extend to financial statements submitted under separate confidential cover. Such information provided under separate cover may be public data, but will be treated by the City consistent with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.

This statement says it all.

However, I’m trying to imagine how the negotiations are compromised if the public knows the basic info in each proposal, ie, location, dollar amount, selling points from the developer’s point of view, etc.

The only information that Statute states as nonpublic relates to “financial information about the business”.

It is clearly understandable that a proposals “financial information” stay confidential until a decision is made, as counter claims or additional offers could subvert the negotiations.

However, all other information in the proposals should be made available to the public which is not financially sensitive information. As with previous data practices requests the City has seen, sensitive information was redacted or removed.

In fact, how much of the scoring sheet process uses the financial information versus all the other information in making a decision.

With interest in the 7 submitted Requests for Proposals, I’ve asked the City Attorney to provide some information on the release of data pertaining to these RFP’s. There is clear law in the data practices act, which the City must follow and makes most of the RFP proposal data nonpublic until the evaluation process is complete because of the City potentially negotiating for the purchase of property. This classification is mandatory; the city cannot waive this classification. Our City Attorney provided a summary of the relevant provisions of Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.591, Business Data:

1. All data in the responses is nonpublic until the responses are opened.
2. Once the responses are opened, the names of the responders are read and become public.
3. All other data in the responses is nonpublic until completion of the evaluation process.
4. “Completion of the evaluation process” means that the city has completed negotiating a contract with the selected vendor.
5. After that point, all remaining data submitted by all responders are public with the exception of “trade secret data” as defined and classified in section 13.37. However, all responders to this RFP were asked to sign a consent for release of response data, so there should not be any concern about releasing the data after a contract is finalized, except for any financial statements submitted to the city under separate confidential cover (this exception appears in the consent for release of response data).
6. If all responses are rejected prior to completion of the evaluation process, all data other than the names of the responders remains nonpublic until a resolicitation of the RFP results in completion of the evaluation process, or a determination is made to abandon the purchase.
7. If the rejection occurs after the completion of the evaluation process, the data remain public.
8. If a resolicitation of proposals does not occur within 1 year of the proposal opening date, the remaining data become public.
9. Data created or maintained by the city as part of the selection or evaluation process are protected nonpublic data until completion of the selection or completion of the evaluation process, at which time the data are public except for any “trade secret data” (there should be none in this case because of the consent for release signed by the responders, except that financial statements may remain confidential).
   

We will also require that those that participate in the review and evaluation of the process not share the information with others not involved in the process until that information becomes public.”

Admittedly, what do any of the three of us know about economic development? However, we sketched out a process for the liquor store (although this is not an indication of support for building a new liquor store) site selection process that seemed to produce very limited concerns about the public release of private information.

First, the City would send out their specifications for a site for a new liquor store to property owners. We thought it would, in its most simple form, consist of something like XX,XXX square feet for the building and YY spaces for parking.

Next, interested property owners would respond with some documentation that they had the necessary square feet and spaces. They would also indicate a willingness to enter into a process with the City.

Third, Staff could rank the responding sites according to the four (at least according to our information) criteria for site evaluation. This ranking would be presented to the decision-making elected officials.

Finally, initial “negotiations” with the owners of the, let’s say, three most favored sites. Although we may not know anything about economic development, all three of us thought that negotiating with just one option was a bad idea.

We couldn’t see any reason to withhold information from the taxpaying public for the first three steps of this process. It was only in the fourth step, where the information would likely include cost or rent per square foot or build-out allowances, that there was information that might need to be private…at least until it was actually time to consider signing a binding contract.

But, one more time, what do the three of us know? I would be interested to hear others’ thoughts about the proposed process and when it was appropriate not to release information to the public.

Here is Minnesota State Law that I think might apply to this matter:

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=13.599

“13.599 GRANTS.

Subd. 3.Responses to request for proposals.

(a) Responses submitted by a grantee are private or nonpublic until the responses are opened. Once the responses are opened, the name and address of the grantee and the amount requested is public. All other data in a response is private or nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process. After a granting agency has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data in the responses is public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37. A statement by a grantee that the response is copyrighted or otherwise protected does not prevent public access to the response.

(b) If all responses are rejected prior to completion of the evaluation process, all data, other than that made public at the opening, remain private or nonpublic until a resolicitation of proposals results in completion of the evaluation process or a determination is made to abandon the grant. If the rejection occurs after the completion of the evaluation process, the data remain public. If a resolicitation of proposals does not occur within one year of the grant opening date, the remaining data become public.
Subd. 4.Evaluation data.

(a) Data created or maintained by a granting agency as part of the evaluation process referred to in this section are protected nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process at which time the data are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in section 13.37.

(b) If a granting agency asks individuals outside the granting agency to assist with the evaluation of the responses, the granting agency may share not public data in the responses with those individuals. The individuals participating in the evaluation may not further disseminate the not public data they review.”

It would seem that for efficiency sake, some City Council members directed staff to finish this thing before the new City Council members took office. Apparently these same City Council members lacked the wisdom to do so months or even years ago when the warning signs were given. Perhaps, a bright light shined upon them and they were inspired to build a new liquor store, a corner stone for economic development…..What crap, this whole thing stinks of personal vendettas and dirty politics.

Some City Council members and City Staff should have known better given their involvement over the Lansing issues. However, they continue to progress this thing as if people have forgotten. I am afraid that people I have spoken to have not forgotten and are now more suspect of conflict of interest issues and City staff manipulation of the facts for their own political ends.

As mentioned earlier, this issue has such bad publicity and terrible twist and turns, that City residents need to be involved in decisions to bring closure once and for good. If the City does not correct its course of action now, they will repeat the same mistakes again and again.

Under the current allegations against the mayor and possible others by implication on this very issue, conflict of interest and ethical issues are at the heart of this very matter. If Northfield was such a small town, why was the Lansing issue even raised?

This is my own personal thought on the matter, which I came up with after discussing the issue with a few people in the city: In a small town, sometimes it can be hard to avoid some conflict of interest. As long as all of the information is out in the open, and the conflict does not appear to be that great, could it be OK to proceed?

4. Daryl Knutson’s property is the yellow/brown buildings on Water street which were the original Nf Hospital. I think the cross street is Eighth. This property was offered for consideration to the city before this formal RFP process, as were some of the others.

They can’t tear down those buildings, as I have an unrealistic pipe dream that we will someday live in the original Northfield Hospital. (Of course, it’d have to be cheap, and also not in serious disrepair. I did say in was a pipe dream.)