NORTH MANKATO — In a last-ditch effort to postpone the issuance of $27 million in Port Authority bonds for a proposed public works facility, North Mankato council member Sandra Oachs made a motion asking the council to consider postponing the purchase. After being seconded by council member Billy Steiner, it was denied 3-2.
During Monday evening’s City Council meeting, Oachs reiterated her opposition to proceeding with the bond sale without additional review and public input. She stated that delaying the process before bids are taken would protect both the city and the Port Authority’s standing in the bond market while allowing time to reassess the project’s cost. Her request was not intended to halt the project, but to re-evaluate.
“Three months ago, we could not find $100,000 for our police department without raising the tax levy,” Oachs wrote in a Facebook post on Jan. 30. “Now we are prepared to commit $27 million to a single facility without a public vote. I’m struggling to understand why or the rationale behind it.”
The bonds are scheduled to be sold Feb. 17, pending final approval by both the Port Authority and the City Council. Mayor Scott Carlson noted that authorizing bonds up to a maximum amount does not obligate the city to spend the full amount authorized.
Given the size of the financial commitment, Oachs requested a formal document outlining long-term ownership and operating costs, which was not prepared or made available to the public before the approval of the bonding authority. She also acknowledged the more than 200 residents that have signed a petition to trigger a referendum on the bonding decision.
“I’ve heard from residents who are asking for clearer and more accessible information about the full long term financial impact of this facility,” Oachs said.“In my opinion, their request is not about stopping progress, it’s about affordability, transparency and responsible stewardship of public dollars.”
Petition organizers have been seeking 417 necessary signatures within 30 days of the council’s Jan. 5 action authorizing the Port Authority to issue the bonds, though City Administrator Kevin McCann explained in previous Free Press reports that as these are not capital improvement plan or CIP bonds, rather Port Authority bonds, there actually is no statutory authority to have a referendum.
Organizers say the goal of the petition is to allow residents to vote on whether the city should take on the long-term debt associated with the project, citing concerns about public awareness and financial impact.
Resident Tom Hagen has been a major organizer of the petition and addressed the council, arguing that because the council has only consulted a contractor, a developer and Public Works staff that there is a disconnect between what the city officials do and what the public actually wants.
Council Member Matt Peterson defended his vote against the pause and said the public works facility has been discussed in public meetings and work sessions approximately 17 or 18 times since it was included in the city’s capital improvement plan in 2022 and it had always been the plan to begin in 2026. He noted that other city facilities, including the library, fire station and police annex were built the same way and stands firm that this project is in the best interest of the city.
“It’s not going to end up being a $44 million building,” he asserted, referencing numbers previously floated as the potential cost to taxpayers over 25 years. “That would be assuming this town never grows, and it’s assuming that we never bring a new business, we never build another house and things don’t change.”
Oachs questioned whether statutory debt limits and long-term financial risks had been fully considered, and asked for clearer justification that the bonding amount is defensible.
Bonds issued under this authority are not subject to the city’s net debt limits, unlike capital improvement bonds issued directly by the city under separate statutes, according to Maren Magill, attorney at Taft Law Firm. Magill clarified that the site is recognized as an industrial development district which is established so that the Port Authority can use its “full powers under the Port Authority law within that area.”
During public comment, retired Water and Sewer Superintendent for the city Duane Rader said “if we continue to postpone the building, costs will continue to rise.”
In closing, Peterson addressed the “ugly” mounting tensions between members of the public and the council.
“Sitting out there is really easy, because you can say whatever you want and do whatever you want. Sitting up here is really hard. It is really hard to put in the time and the effort.”