Representative Kelly Fenton's Proposal (HF463) Threatens Voting Integrity

photo credit: www.house.leg.state.mn.us/SessionDaily

Representative Kelly Fenton, Republican serving district 53b in Woodbury, is the author of an election bill HF463. Included in the bill is a proposal to expand a form of early voting in Minnesota to 46 days! Effectively changing our system from an Election Day, to an Election Month and a half. Representative Fenton did not respond to questions asking why she wants to overhaul absentee voting and why she was avoiding the checks and balances of the legislative process by placing the bill in the House election omnibus bill.

Also on the bill besides Fenton as an author is Representative Tim O'Driscoll (R) and Roz Peterson (R), the rest of the 9 total authors are democrats.

In 2013, the Democrat controlled Legislature passed a law allowing voters to obtain an absentee ballot with no excuse, up to 46 days before the election. In 2016, the legislature changed the law to allow the voter to turn in the ballot in person up to 7 days before the election day to be counted. Both law changes hurt voting integrity as it brought more voting outside the verification of the polling place.  

Andy Cilek, Executive Director of the Minnesota Voters Alliance stated in a letter to law makers: Representative Fenton's proposal will enable potentially hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots to be counted, bypassing the local Ballot Boards. They will no longer be able to review absentee ballot applications that they now screen and reject. In short, the change from 7 to 46 days undermines the sole purpose of absentee ballot boards.

Cilek went on to say:

Following the 2008 election, Data Practices Act request produced data showing 17,000 of the 545,000 same day registrants had to be marked “challenged” in the Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS) database because they did not pass one of the 9 eligibility checks. (To view the 9 eligibility checks, visit www.MNVoters.org/voterfraud and view the Mark Ritchie video, 5th one down)

Voter fraud happens in Minnesota's absentee ballot system and it makes no sense to make this problem worse by six fold (7 to 46 days). Especially to pass such a massive overhaul through this session’s omnibus bill without prior examination of its ramifications. Representative Fenton has not responded to questions regarding her decision to tag this on the election omnibus bill rather than put it through committee hearings and have it pass as a stand alone bill.

There's a whole list of addition reasons Fenton's bill is horrible that we credit the Minnesota Voters Alliance for providing. Please contact your legislators to remove "Alternative procedure" from the house election omnibus bill. Simply pick one or all of the many reasons:

• This bill changes our system from an Election Day, to an Election Month and a half, giving voters an extra 46 days to find a convenient time to vote before their eligibility can be verified.
• The bill’s name and wording intentionally mislead legislators. The name does little to describe the bill and, together with the wording, blur the distinction between absentee voting (already registered and verified voters) and with new unregistered voters (whose new registrations will not be verified until after the election and after their votes have been counted). 
• In the “Alternative Procedure” bill, the early registrants are not verified for eligibility prior to voting because their Voter Registration Application (VRA) is SET ASIDE until after Election Day, just as if they were absentee voters, in accordance with MS 201.061. This means that the person is not verified to see if they meet the qualifications to vote, they simply do so on the “honor system”. 
• Having fewer election observers to monitor the actual casting of ballots inevitably increases the potential for fraud;
• A much larger proportion of votes being cast in an uncontrolled environment. The ballots are out there, and there’s nobody watching.
• “Ballot harvesters” will have more options; they can pick busloads of people up, bring them down to the voting booth - it’s easier and quicker- and these operatives can be paid on the number of ballots that are cast.

According to Andy Cilek, Fenton has been responding to concerned citizens saying the new procedure will help solve some problem of too many people handing ballots in the absentee process.  There's no evidence of this being a problem.  Even if a small issue exists in that regard, it would be absolutely dwarfed in comparison to the problems that will arise if this bill passes.  

Legislators must implement laws that protect our election integrity – not make our elections more vulnerable to fraud.


More articles on Representative Fenton:

Four Reasons Rep. Kelly Fenton was a Terrible Choice for a Republican Assistant Majority Leader  
Representative Fenton's New Woodbury Lodging Tax Bill is a Slap in the Face to New Hotels and GOP
Four GOP Legislators are Silent After Attempt to Sneak Funding for Mass Transit in Omnibus Bill 
Common Sense Solution to Prevent Voter Fraud Makes it Through the Senate, Stopped by Representative Fenton in the House
At Her Own Crossroads: Will Representative Fenton Lead or Appease

Four GOP Legislators are Silent After Attempt to Sneak Funding for Mass Transit in Omnibus Bill

4/14/17 update: Representative Petersburg promises these mass transit bills will not be in the house transportation omnibus bill. However, the bills could be snuck into the capital investment omnibus bills because it does not have a bill authorship deadline like the others. Stay tuned.
-----------------------

Right now the Republican Controlled Minnesota Legislature is working to pass their many different "Omnibus" Bills from everything from education to road funding. These are pieces of proposed legislation with dozens of individual bills that are grouped together by similarity to be passed in one floor vote to save time. Last week we covered the House and Senate Transportation omnibus bills, which both passed:
GOP Senate Passes $5.8 Billion Transportation Bill with $180 Million to Met Council & 
Mass Transit a Huge Raise
Vice Chair Rep. Petersburg Promises No Transit Bills in 2017 House Transportation Omnibus Bill

The next step is for these house and senate bills to meet in reconciliation in order to work on matching. When they do they'll go to the Governor to be signed into law.

This article is about the mass transit bills (Light Rail and Bus Corridors) that four of our Washington County GOP State Legislators attempted to sneak into the Republican transportation (roads and bridges) omnibus bills in the House and Senate. They crossed the aisle and joined 29 democrats in this effort. Thankfully, for the tax payers, their efforts to pass one over on the voters by hiding mass transit funding into road and bridge funding bills failed. If they respected the legislative process they would have put their bills through committee, personally defended the need to be funded by the entire state, and put them up as stand alone bills on the floor. They attempted to bypass all these checks and balances and sneak them into an omnibus bill as is common practice by the opposing democrat party. They could still try to sneak their bills into another omnibus bill like the capital investment. But we'll see. 

What's shocking is the fact that all four of these GOP legislators are from Washington County since there are 111 Republican legislators in the State.

All citizens benefit from state funded roads that are supported by Transportation omnibus bills. Not only for personal transport; but also delivery of goods and services. Mass transit (light rail and bus rapid transit) do not benefit the residents of the state. At best, mass transit only serves immediate residents along the short length of the corridors that are usually less than 20 miles long in Minnesota. They don't deliver goods and services and they don't transport you if you have more than you can carry in your arms. Generous estimates state that only 4% of just Twin City metro commutes are by Mass Transit. Statewide, less than a fraction of 1%. So why should tax dollars meant for roads and bridges go to fund transit lines that statistically very few people use? This is why republicans legislators do not allow transit bills to be hidden inside transportation omnibus bills. Yet four of our legislators broke with their fiscal conservative party principles and attempted to fund wasteful transit spending and worst, in this manner.

The bills and legislators are:

-HF2442/SF1767 - : $3 million for the Gateway Corridor/Gold Line Transit way funding. Senator Karin Housley, Republcan, 39B covering Forest Lake, Stillwater, and Lake Elmo has her name on the bill. (more on why the Gateway corridor is a bad idea here)
-HF2453 -: $3 million for the Gateway Corridor/ Gold Line. Representative Kelly Fenton, Republican, 53B covering Woodbury has her name on the bill. 

-HF2385/SF2260-$5,600,000 for the Red Rock Corridor transit way. Representative Tony Jurgens (R,54B,Cottage Grove, Afton, Hastings) and Representative Keith Franke (R,54A,New Port, Cottage Grove) have their names on the bill.  (more on why the Red Rock Corridor is a bad idea here)

The RINO (republican in name only) Representative Fenton, Senator Housley, Representative Jurgens (elected 2016), and Representative Franke (elected 2016) apparently do not understand the four mass transit corridors that have been built in Minnesota have cost tax payers billions yet have had no impact on decreasing road congestion or meeting expectations for job growth etc. 
we told them:"If you can't align with the party against failed mass transit it's easy to predict a repeat of 2011 when the GOP did nothing to reform wasteful transit spending, the un-elected met council, and actually did the opposite and funded horrible transit lines like the Red Rock Corridor and Gateway Corridor with direct funding as your bills this session request.... As you know the GOP lost the house and Senate the following year. When this session is again a failure to cut something simple as failed mass transit spending and Met Council reform we predict a similar defeat for the Republican legislature AND the Governor's seat." 

we asked them each four questions and gave them over a week to respond. All four refused to answer these questions (some worded differently depending on recipient):
For Representative Kelly Fenton1.) we see your name is on HF2453 to fund the $420 million dollar Gateway Corridor/Gold Line Corridor Bus "Rapid" Transit project $3 million tax dollars. Money that would keep this $420 million dollar, 9 mile bus route to wind down the side streets from Woodbury to St. Paul alive. That's $46.6 million per mile to make a negligible impact (if any) in congestion. Just 5% decrease if you use the corridor's 2040 ridership prediction with today's I-94 traffic volume. Retired MNDOT highway planer Frank Pafko has stated numerous times in the media that "it only costs $5-$10 million per mile to add a lane of freeway or highway." $10 million a mile for inner city freeway like I-94. In 2011 he and MNDOT had a plan to add a lane, a MN-Pass lane, it was tabled by Dayton and the DFL. Metro Transit has a $9 million dollar alternative to the Gold Line.  With all the evidence showing the Gold line will be another failed BRT corridor what evidence do you have to justify putting your name on a bill to fund this bus line rather than a more affordable and a more utilized added lane or Metro Transit line? (There is already an express bus route, regular bus routes, Metro Mobility, and other forms of public transit in your district.)

  2.) This year there are 111 GOP legislators in MN. You and only 3 others decided to leave the party platform of fiscal conservative values and author failed mass transit bills. Please read Representative Hertaus's comment:"I don't think it was necessarily the legislature's intent to provide an unlimited open checkbook to subsidize at an "unkown" number of rail lines at an unkown cost. Extending the current losses funded by the legislature to the six additional proposed MetC lines would suggest (by my own calculations) the current $55 million of losses would triple to $165 million. This promises to be an endless obligation and when shouldered up against the talked about 10 year transportation funding plan, this would be a $1.65 billion dollar funding shortfall, not to mention a likely $12 BILLION dollars to construct the lines. This totals by my estimation, $13.65 billion for LRT over the next 10 years compared to $6 billion over the same period for all of our roads and bridges statewide. This is more than DOUBLE the expenditure for less than 3% of total ridership assuming the LRT ridership doubles over the same period. Further, these losses will starve the general fund for other constitutionally mandated responsibilities such as education, transportation, judiciary and public safety and will ultimately lead to yet higher taxes." Why did you go against your party's pledge of fiscal responsibility to support this corridor? 
3.) In the time since you last authored a bill to fund the Gateway Corridor you found yourself challenged in the primary by a fiscal Conservative and Air Force Veteran who opposed the Gold Line named Steve Ellenwood. Also, Lake Elmo saw the corridor was so bad for them they kicked the Corridor out; coincidentally after we hand wrote to over 100 residents who attend city council meetings in the past. Nearby Oakdale residents also made it clear they don't want the corridor: http://alphanewsmn.com/oakdale-residents-speak-out-against-the-485-million-bus-route/ To be clear, for 60 people in opposition to show up when I've never seen more than two or three show up in support of any Washington County Corridor meeting is huge. Nearby Representative Lohmer stated the only people she is aware of supporting the Gateway Corridor are people who will profit from it's construction. So with all this open opposition and not one true fiscal conservative that we know of who supports this corridor with any facts...  Why do you fight your constituents so hard on this and continue to support it only during off election years? 
4.) The latest news is President Trump is killing the $100 billion left in spending for the new starts grant program. This program is how transit projects have been funded in the US. This would have funded half the money for the Gateway corridor and Red Rock Corridor and all the others in Minnesota. Why author a controversial bill to fund a terrible corridor that is circling the drain and having the federal funds pulled out from under it? 
For Senator Karin Housley (Only the questions that differ from the 4 above are repeated):3.) When you last authored a bill to fund the Gateway Corridor your last Constituent base with land touching the Gold line was in Lake Elmo. Since this time, they withdrew their support. Coincidentally after we hand wrote to over 100 residents of Lake Elmo the truth about the "pro-growth" corridor:  Lake Elmo has kicked the Gateway Corridor out. Afton (in your district) voted years ago not to allow the corridor on their side of I-94. So you no longer have constituents land that will be directly "served" by the corridor. One could argue your constituents oppose the corridor based on the fact they voted no to the corridor in their LPA. Representative Lohmer, who shares half your district, stated the only people she is aware of supporting the Gateway Corridor are people who will profit from it's construction. If you have bi-partisan constituents who are against the Transit Oriented Devolpment (TOD) that the Gold Line would bring and the Gold Line is out of your district now... why are you the author of this bill for the Gold Line?  
For Representative Tony Jurgens (Only the questions that differ from the 4 above are repeated):
1.) Before the election and even after you and Representative Franke have refused multiple times from multiple outlets to say whether or not you were for or against the Red Rock Corridor. In the final days of forming a transportation omnibus bill we see your name and Franke's is on HF2385 to give $5,600,000 to the un-elected Metropolitan Council who will funnel it to the nightmare Red Rock Corridor. (Red Rock Corridor Faces Delays as 7 Facts Become Undeniable.) Money that would keep what's left of this terrible idea alive. Seeing that the corridor failed to meet the minimum requirement for the feds to fund the corridor the County planners had to ditch the millions wasted on the original plan. Their solution was to go to Metro Transit's (Service Improvement Plan) book and pick out a rejected route they had for Cottage Grove, fund it, and call it the Red Rock Corridor. (Red Rock Corridor Plan Falls Apart Now Wants to be Called Route 363) A member of the Hasting's city council said they wouldn't even be alive by the time the corridor reached your district in Hastings (2040 earliest).  With all the evidence showing the Red Rock Corridor is a terrible idea, what evidence do you have to justify putting your name on a bill to fund this bus line that's not in your district rather than a more affordable and a more utilized added lane or leave it to the professionals of Metro Transit?
3.) Your predecessor, former Representative Denny McNamara (Republican) supported the Red Rock Corridor. It appeared to end his political career as he had filed to run for re-election; but for some reason found himself the day before the filing deadline handing the opportunity to you (campaign backers dried up?). Since this time, the Red Rock Corridor is going along with a Route 363 plan that will barely touch your district. The Red Rock Corridor has become nothing more than funding for a rejected Metro Transit Route 363, renamed the Red Rock Corridor. Why are you threatening support from your fiscal conservative base and all the bi-partisan constituents in your district who won't see the corridor reach them by the earliest estimation of 2040? There is already express bus routes, Metro Mobility, the Hastings Loop bus, and other forms of public transit in your district. 

For Representative Keith Franke (Only the questions that differ from the 4 above are repeated):1.) Before the election and even after you and Representative Jurgens have refused multiple times from multiple outlets to say whether or not you were for or against the Red Rock Corridor. In the final days of forming a transportation omnibus bill wesee your name and Jurgen's on HF2385 to give $5,600,000 to the un-elected Metropolitan Council who will funnel it to the nightmare Red Rock Corridor. (Red Rock Corridor Faces Delays as 7 Facts Become Undeniable.) Money that would keep what's left of this terrible idea alive. Seeing that the corridor failed to meet the minimum requirement for the feds to fund the corridor the County planners had to ditch the millions wasted on the original plan. Their solution was to go to Metro Transit's (Service Improvement Plan) book and pick out a rejected route they had for Cottage Grove, fund it, and call it the Red Rock Corridor. (Red Rock Corridor Plan Falls Apart Now Wants to be Called Route 363).  With all the evidence showing the Red Rock Corridor is a terrible idea, what evidence do you have to justify putting your name on a bill to fund this bus line rather than a more affordable and a more utilized added lane or leave it to the professionals of Metro Transit? Consider the massive failure of Newport Transit Station, $6.45 million, No Riders, and No Surprise in your district.
3.) In the next district over from yours, former Representative  Denny McNamara (Republican) supported the Red Rock Corridor. It appeared to end his political career as he had filed to run for re-election; but for some reason found himself the day before the filing deadline handing the opportunity to Tony Jurgens (campaign backers dried up?). Since this time, the Red Rock Corridor has become nothing more than funding for a rejected Metro Transit Route 363, renamed the Red Rock Corridor. Why are you threatening support from your fiscal conservative base and all the bi-partisan constituents in your district who see this corridor is a failure and a burden to tax payers? There is already express bus routes, Metro Mobility, and other forms of public transit in your district. 

None of them responded. If they do, we'll update the article here.

 -$1.6 BILLION 2017 Bonding Bill. Legislators Say They Refuse to Cut Any Pork.

-Speaker Daudt Blindsides Transportation Omnibus and Takes Out Met Council Oversight

-GOP Caves on Mass Transit, Offers Dayton Dream Budget for the Met Council to Continue Transit Lines
Seven Reasons Rep. Kelly Fenton was a Terrible Choice for a Republican Assistant Majority Leader  Four GOP Legislators are Silent After Attempt to Sneak Funding for Mass Transit in Omnibus Bill  

Red Rock Corridor Faces Delays as 7 Facts Become Undeniable

The Gateway Corridor, Big Promises, Little Evidence

Gateway Corridor vs Metro Transit: How State's $9 million Route Upgrade Could Replace the Gateway Corridor

Representative Fenton's New Woodbury Lodging Tax Bill is a Slap in the Face to New Hotels and GOP

Representative Kelly Fenton (Republican) district 53B is what most fiscal conservatives in her party would call a RINO (Republican in Name Only) based on her record since day one of taking office in 2014. Her latest insult to party principle of fiscal responsibility is a bill to allow a new 2% lodging tax for Woodbury with HF1057. This comes after several Hotels recently decided to build in Woodbury (likely to avoid the higher taxes of downtown and pass the savings onto customers). New hotels to Woodbury such as the Sheraton, La Quinta, and Residence Inn by Marriott.

What better way to say welcome to Woodbury than to wait for them to finish building and then stab them in the back with a new tax just for them. We requested comment from Representative Fenton. Here's her unedited full quote:

"Under current law, Woodbury and other cities are able to levy a tax of up to three percent on lodging. My legislation will ultimately save taxpayers money by dedicating two-thirds of that tax collected by the city to fund renovations and improvements to Central Park. Without this legislation, local property taxpayers would ultimately be forced to foot the bill for these improvements. Any suggestion that this bill would authorize a new tax or give the city new authority to raise taxes is demonstrably false. I think this legislation is a win for our community and for the hardworking taxpayers of Woodbury."

I responded proving she was wrong on all counts stating:

1.) It would be a new tax for Woodbury because they don't currently impose a lodging tax. Which is the whole reason they probably built here in Woodbury over most of the other suburbs that do have the tax or high taxes in general. Even the liberal coverage at the Star Tribune called it a "new tax" in their article covering the story.

2.) Also false is the premise that current law does not allow cities to keep the lodging tax revenue for themselves. According to the Woodbury Bulletin article on this story 95% of the tax can be used by the city with the law staying as it currently is! 

3.) City Councilor Chris Burns in the Bulletin article also calls Fenton's bill "a new tax" and goes further to explain they don't need the tax (contrary to Fenton's claim they need it for the Central Park)!:

"he feels the city could create a welcoming center at Central Park without levying a new tax.
“A tax is a tax,” he said. “I'd like to have less taxes and lower rates.”"
4.) Furthermore the idea that property tax payers in Woodbury would be left to foot the bill for the City Center is also false. Just across I-94 from Fenton's district in Lake Elmo the city's development motto is "growth pays for growth." This is a theme of many cities across the County. Liberal cities like "growth pays for growth" because city tax payers are not bailing out "Big Business". Conservative cities like Lake Elmo like the policy because one person isn't having their money taxed away only to have it redistributed to someone else for a cause they may never use.

To our knowledge at Washington County Watchdog Representative Fenton has yet to author a bill to decrease the size of government, decrease a tax, or reform nightmare State run programs like the unaccountable public schools, MNsure, Met Council, and boondoggle mass transit corridors. Actually the opposite appears in her legislative history. With bills for the Gateway Corridor, $189,000 for a fully privately funded park, giving the County power over the cities for their economic development authority, and spending for efforts many would be frustrated to see State resources going to fund. 

we asked her:

Would you like to respond to defend your apparent lack of fiscal conservative record as far as the bills you decide to author (and not author)?

Representative Fenton did not respond. This silence and her record speaks volumes about who she really is and the damage she causes to her party. A person can have respect for a democrat who issues tax and spend legislation like this because at least they are honest about their agenda before you vote. A person can have no respect for a RINO who lies on the campaign trail and hi-jacks a party because they know they're more likely to get elected with a (R) behind their name than a (D) in a given area. 

Four Reasons Rep. Kelly Fenton was a Terrible Choice for a Republican Assistant Majority Leader  
Four GOP Legislators are Silent After Attempt to Sneak Funding for Mass Transit in Omnibus Bill  

At Her Own Crossroads: Will Representative Fenton Lead or Appease

Exclusive: 8 local Republican Legislators Explain their Position on Transit

Seven Reasons Rep. Kelly Fenton was a Terrible Choice for a Republican Assistant Majority Leader

3/2017 here's a fifth reason: Representative Fenton's New Woodbury Lodging Tax Bill is a Slap in the Face to New Hotels and GOP

4/2017: here's a sixth: Four GOP Legislators are Silent After Attempt to Sneak Funding for Mass Transit in Omnibus Bill  

4/2017 here's a seventh: Representative Kelly Fenton's Proposal (HF463) Threatens Voting Integrity with "Alternative Procedure"
--------------------------

As a fiscal conservative, not beholden to any political party: overall I can say I'm proud of the work from the 2016 Republican run house. For one: They listened to the voters to hold the line on direct funding for more failed transit lines by killing the bills in the house (like SWLRT). At least for the 3 terrible corridors being planned in Washington County. Unfortunately Met Council still got their $80+ million dollar blank check to back door fund whatever transit line their unelected hearts desire. But they were working with a DFL controlled Senate and Governor so they couldn't pass a dream budget that would impress fiscal conservatives.

Most fiscal conservatives understand that no politician can meet expectations 100% of the time. However, it doesn't take long to spot a politician that completely abandons you and even the party principles they promised to uphold. 

Therefore, I don't take calling out a republican lightly. By their party definition they are supposed to be fiscally conservative too. One in my position should caution calling one out. Yet I will not abandon my promise to hold all political parties in check. All the volunteer moderators on Washington County Watchdog agree to this. With that, I must warn everyone about one of the newly appointed Republican Assistant Majorirty Leaders, Representative Kelly Fenton. She does talk the talk; but her brief record in the house absolutely doesn't reflect it (just finished her first term). Actually her record is the opposite; here are four facts from her own record:

1.) Fenton is anything but a fiscal conservative Republican. Simply print out the list of bills she's authored, cover up the name, and show it around and ask if it was a democrat or a republican's record... you'd be like the dozens of her delegates at the GOP District 53 primary convention I asked this very question... they all guessed democrat. Probably based on all her education bills (10 of them) to fund do nothing school programs rather than reform our broken school system or support school choice. Plus her eight bills on different election laws. Then there was only ONE bill to fund a road project that she hardly spent anytime fighting for. This road bill didn't even pass, to my knowledge it's tied up in HF622 that failed to pass in final moments of session. (more on that on page 2 of this report www.taxpayersleague.org/scorecards)

2.) Fenton was the chief author for a request for the Gateway Corridor (Gold Line) Transit Funding in 2015, meanwhile in her district she is nearly silent in comparison about THE MOST deadly freeway interchange in the state (694/494/94) that needs study, engineering and construction funding: 

At Her Own Crossroads: Will Representative Fenton Lead or Appease 

This corridor is a waste of a half a BILLION dollars to take AT MOST 5% of traffic off the I94 freeway:

The Gateway Corridor, Big Promises, Little Evidence

Worst of all there's a fiscally responsible option out there:
Gateway Corridor vs Metro Transit: How State's $9 million Route Upgrade Could Replace the Gateway Corridor

3.) Fenton is not a good supporter of small government. She was the Chief author of a bill last session to strip Economic Development rights away from cities and hand it over to pro-mass bus transit Counties like ours who can now supercede the will of it's cities (the bill passed): 

Representative Fenton's Bill to Give Washington County Final Say Over it's City's Economic Development

This strategic move was taken in response after Lake Elmo Kicked the Gateway Corridor Out because it requires "Transit Oriented Development" which they don't like in their small town.

4.) Early in the 2016 session Fenton refused to withdraw her carry over bill to provide $189,000 to a park that had already fully funded itself! Senator Housley listened to my request and she removed her name from the bill immediately:

Madison Place Playground, Fully Funded by Private Donors. 

Representative Fenton Refuses to Retract her Funding Request

Fenton is a great politician as far as doing anything it takes to get elected. She talked her way into office repeating the beliefs of her party. Small government, cutting taxes, responsible spending, roads before transit, pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, etc. As you can tell she authors bills to do the complete opposite in most of these fields. She has wrote ZERO bills to support the core things citizens in her party would strongly support. Sad thing is this list only scratches the surface. 

Hopefully House members will not be distracted by Representative Kelly Fenton's personal quest to grow government programs and fund half a billion dollar bus rapid transit lines that have all the evidence against them.

Representative Fenton's New Woodbury Lodging Tax Bill is a Slap in the Face to New Hotels and GOP
Four GOP Legislators are Silent After Attempt to Sneak Funding for Mass Transit in Omnibus Bill  

At Her Own Crossroads: Will Representative Fenton Lead or Appease

Exclusive: 8 local Republican Legislators Explain their Position on Transit

Representative Fenton's Bill to Give Washington County Final Say Over it's City's Economic Development

Latest on Representative Fenton: 

Seven Reasons Rep. Kelly Fenton was a Terrible Choice for a Republican Assistant Majority Leader

Update: The bill passed

Cities of Washington County can look forward to being trampled by the County if they think their city shouldn't do as the County wishes. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""city" means county and "city council" means county board."these 9 words are in HF2820 / SF2520 that's currently backed by every legislator in Washington County to change the 233 pages that make up "Minnesota Statute, section 469: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT".

The authors of the bill Representative Kelly Fenton (R) district 53B and Senator Katie Sieben (D) district 54 did a great job presenting this as an innocent jobs promotion bill to update existing law. It flew through the House committee early March and it wasn't until March 18th did we realize this bill most likely has an underlying motive besides it's superficial claims.

On the surface HF2820 / SF2520 appears to be as the legislators claim. A bill that is "Reforming and Streamlining County Government" by granting "economic development" power to the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). It initially appears to be a good idea... why not let the County get involved with Economic development? However, we read the entire proposal and the original law... Nothing in the proposed changes to the law indicates this is anything but encroaching on cities.

"Economic development" as it's written in the law is currently granted to cities (469.091). Cities have the final say to bring in outside help (such as a county) (469.094). In fact, the current law explicitly protects cities with their own economic development power from an over reaching county:

469.1082:
"Any county that has granted economic development powers to a community development agency or a county housing and redevelopment authority under any of these provisions may not form a county economic development authority or grant a housing and redevelopment authority the powers specified in subdivision 4, clause (2)." (emphasis added)

Think... if this bill was such a great idea than: 

1.) Why is it only for Washington County?

2.) Why is it at this time? (two months after Lake Elmo kicks the Gateway Corridor out)

3.) Why hasn't it been done for any of the 87 counties in the 158 years that the MN legislature has been meeting? (1857 was the first convention)

It's clearly a plan to at the least duplicate the economic power city's have and as our first sentence points out it supplants it with the County. Republicans are supposed to be the party of eliminating red tape, duplicate services, and cutting taxes. So we sent this email on March 18th and received no response from legislators: "Every Republican Legislator in WC, what's with growing government with HF2820/SF2520?!" Steve Ellenwood, who announced he's is going to run against Fenton for abandoning her conservative base, responded: 

"I stand with you. Stop, we've had enough government intervention into our lives and pocket books!"

On Monday March 21st we testified for the Senate Committee on State and Local Government against the bill. My testimony had four reasons to not pass HF2820 / SF2520 through:

1.) It duplicates the power cities have to manage their own "economic development." At worst, city and county economic development powers may not agree and the conflict could end in the city being trampled. ie: if Washington County wanted to force them to accept high density housing or a transit corridor they just kicked out.
2.) Cities and to a greater extent: the private sector free market, is the best at identifying and providing economic development to a property (ie: store placement)

3.) Having followed every Washington County board meeting for the last 3 years I'm familiar with the workings of the HRA. The HRA board in WC is stacked with un-elected ideologues with no qualifications, perhaps good intentions, and the power over millions of tax dollars. Often the person appointed to the position for a given area by the County board is the only person to volunteer. With HF2820 / SF2520 they want to give this unaccountable board "Economic Development" power?!!!! yeah they have to get their budgets approved by the County Board... Mind you, this is the same county board that's tripled the county debt in the period of 8 years (and we're adding another 20 million this year):County Debt Tripled in the Last Seven Years, the Board Undeterred: Budget Passes

4.) Government "Economic development" if that's not essentially the power to redistribute wealth and pick winners and losers, we don't know what is... it's one thing to give local governments the "Housing and Redevelopment" power which is essentially subsidizing high density housing and empowering them to prepare blighted land for development... but it's a huge stretch to start granting counties economic development power to ... even for democrats. At least with cities that exceed the ability for businesses to survive the business can move the next city over, keep their employees, and survive.

Representative Fenton emailed back this response denying any ulterior motivation.... Yet she also happens to be the author of HF1617 to fund the Gateway Corridor that was just kicked out of Lake Elmo. It's not a stretch to claim that she needs this bill to give Washington County the power to tell Lake Elmo what's best for them.

Although Fenton is correct about the HRA maintaining their current power that's about the only thing she's correct on in her response. You will notice she doesn't back any of her statements with quotes from the law change proposal that is HF2820 / SF2520 or in the 233 page law it proposes to change: "Minnesota Statute, section 469: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT"

The rest of Fenton's statements are a mix of semantics with misinformation. Laughable is the comment about how she believes the private sector is what drives the economy since this bill gives the government more power to manipulate the private sector (through the HRA) and what the free market could do with property if the government could just leave well enough alone... 

Just ask Cottage Grove: 

They go through more big box stores than a teenager on black Friday. But that's their freedom, they elect city councilors that like to micro manage. In turn they attract businesses to their high tax, high red tape, area the only way they know how: By offering up short term candy with their economic development power (EDA)... only to watch them eventually flee: Home Depot, Famous Dave's, Rainbow Foods, the drive in movie theater (on and on)... Not mention the Epic failure their business center is:

http://www.swcbulletin.com/news/education/3842459-after-bleeding-money-out-future-uncertain-cottage-grove-business-enterprise

But if Cottage Grove wants to have a $16 million dollar city hall, pay for a city run Golf Course, pay millions for a YMCA even though south Woodbury has one 5 minutes away... then they can keep reap the consequences of their strategy to bait stores to build there... while they keep leaving when the favoritism expires. 

Point is: Don't mess with the will of the citizens of Cottage Grove (or Lake Elmo, that is the opposite in that they keep things small town)

Fenton says "The proposed will compliment municipal economic development and not impede it." Compliment municipal power is an assumption... Sure a city and the county could have mutual goals to bring "fortune 500 companies" in. However, that's not true for cities like Lake Elmo who denied Cabella's their request to build there (so they went to woodbury).  Again, it's a tinder box for the County board to say their economic development ideas are better that a city like Cottage Grove or Lake Elmo's EDA wants.

another example:
Washington County offered an elderly 80+ year old man just $423,500 for his historic farmstead in prime Lake Elmo location. He refused so the County took him to court and took his land from him behind the City of Lake Elmo's back: 

There isn't a need to change the law to allow the County to help a city prosper. 

The County Just created their own EDA in 2015 in preparation for this. There was no need to do this and it cost tax payers $210,000. More in the years to come:

ie: 

Washington County is working very closely with Afton on their Main Street road project. Tailoring parking spaces, lighting, and everything to the individual needs of each block... they don't need a law to cooperate or advocate for the city. OR when it came to Washington County who helped Lake Elmo get the trucking company Valley Cartage lured in with a tax abatement deal (because taxes in St. Croix Wi are way lower)... the county didn't need Economic Development power to help:

http://patch.com/wisconsin/hudson-wi/valley-cartage-trucking-company-unveils-new-lake-elmo-facility_36b7642a

Fenton says it "will NOT duplicate or replace work of cities and other public agencies." HF 2820 completely duplicates the cities economic development power! That's the whole point of the law.

Don't take my word for it, here's the proof in HF2820 / SF2520:

They change the language of the law to specifically undermine cities in Section 1 of the law change!:
"For purposes of applying Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.090 to 
469.1081, to Washington County, notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, section 469.090, 
subdivision 3, "city" means county and "city council" means county board." (emphasis added) It appears: Good bye "city" and "city council"!

Still don't believe me... here's how they change section 2 of the law:
"Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 

Community Development Agency includes all of the area within the territorial boundaries 
of the county and includes the areas within the boundaries of every city in the county 
and the 
area areas of operation of city housing and redevelopment authorities 
and city economic development authorities 
in the county..." (emphasis added)... no language to say the cities have the last word.

Perhaps it's still not clear... Section 2a changes:
"Washington County Community Development Agency shall act and have exclusive jurisdiction for economic 
development, housing, or redevelopment duties in the statutory or home rule charter city or township" (emphasis added) if that doesn't say 'we own you cities' we don't know what else can convince you.

There's one tidbit to potentially give cities power and that's the final rule change... BUT... it's limited to "projects" so a great way to screw a city is to say it's not an economic development project... it's a transit project (pick your label). ie: foreign truck manufactures get around the truck import tax by shipping trucks in without their truck beds attached and claim they're not technically trucks. Political Semantics: Section 3 subdivision 2 

"the project must be authorized by resolution of the governing body of the statutory or home rule charter 

city or township with respect to each identified parcel of property" ... but remember the first change in the language of the law ""city" means county and "city council" means county board." So with clever quoting Fenton, and supporters, can claim that cities keep their rights while conveniently failing to mention that the law essentially erases the power of the city council by supplanting the County over City's rights. 

Lastly, and most importantly: 

She says "This bill follows the same process taken by CDAs established in Dakota, Scott, and Carver counties." Funny, because none of the 87 counties in MN find the need to change the law: "Minnesota Statute, section 469: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT" Yes, we read all 233 pages of current law and nowhere in the law does it say anything about other counties getting special economic development power. In fact if you search for these other Counties their names don't even appear in all 233 pages of the law! 

Yes they can trample City rights with the proposal via the current law and it's VERY easy:

469.004 COUNTY AND MULTICOUNTY AUTHORITIES. subdivision 1: 
"No county authority shall transact any business or exercise any powers until the governing body of the county, by resolution, finds that there is need for a county authority to function in the county. The governing body shall consider the need for a county authority to function (1) on the governing body's own motion or (2) upon the filing of a petition signed by 25 qualified voters of the county asserting that there is need for a county authority to function in the county and requesting that the governing body so declare. The governing body shall adopt a resolution declaring that there is need for a county authority to function in the county if it makes the findings required in section 469.003, subdivision 1."

ie: the county can simply create a "motion" (a vote) and find 25 voters (might as well be zero) and simply decide what's best for any given city in WC.

The fact is this law does not need to be changed to do the things Fenton claims it will do for cities. Current law gives Counties all the power and freedom to work with cities that they need. The word "county" is mentioned 540 times in the law! Yet city is mentioned 1,370 times in the law... this points to the fact that the law should remain as is. That cities know what's best for themselves and Counties are not prevented from helping them. 

Why undo literally everything with these words 9 words in HF2820 / SF2520: ""city" means county and "city council" means county board."?

All the cities need to wake up to the motivation that is behind this law. HF2820 / SF2520 is an insult to every city, township, and municipality in Washington County and to the tax payers and voters of the cities.

Please tell you legislator to take their names off the bill:
Find out who your legislator is here: http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

Seven Reasons Rep. Kelly Fenton was a Terrible Choice for a Republican Assistant Majority Leader
Representative Fenton's New Woodbury Lodging Tax Bill is a Slap in the Face to New Hotels and GOP

At Her Own Crossroads: Will Representative Fenton Lead or Appease
Four GOP Legislators are Silent After Attempt to Sneak Funding for Mass Transit in Omnibus Bill  

Exclusive: 8 local Republican Legislators Explain their Position on Transit

Surprise, surprise... still a month after 

Lake Elmo Kicks the Gateway Corridor 

out the Corridor planners are reporting to the county board they're still planning to roll through Lake Elmo.  No mention

of the boot they got the month prior.

How good it will be to have Fenton's Bill to tell Lake Elmo what's best for them?