Minnesota Legislature

Present: (Members) Jeanine Barker, Jeff Carlson, Don Goedken, Marty Henschel, Bob Horton, Paul Kiltinen, Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, Cindy Koosman, Denny Kron, Richard Little, Gail Miller, Bill Mori, Joe Witt. (Guests) Luci Botzek, Greg Hubinger, Merrill King.

1. Call to order

Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer called the meeting to order at 9.35 AM.

2. Minutes of 9 July 2001 meeting

The minutes of the 9 July meeting were approved as distributed.

3. Report on Legislative Coordinating Commission contract

Secretary Kiffmeyer announced that the contract with the LCC is completed and signed. It clearly states that the LCC’s role is the administrative support to the task force. The task force will always be in charge of and have final say over the budget, projects and work plan.

4. Report on funding projections/surcharge resources

Merrill King, from the Department of Finance, distributed a projection of revenues dedicated to the task force for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The calculation for FY02 was based on revenues for ten months of the year and without receiving any revenues from torrens filings. The total was $377,380. The calculation for FY03 was based on an amendment to the law to allow the task force to receive revenues from torrens filings. The total was $584,330. Both are conservative projections.

The task force members had some questions about the over payments from torrens filings that the counties would receive during FY02. Luci Botzek reported that the state auditor’s office does not feel the counties have legal authority to donate the overage to the task force, but this was not an official opinion and could be more closely examined. Jeff Carlson felt that there would not be much overage. Most filings are done by title companies, which will be aware of the exact fee required.

Secretary Kiffmeyer said that the task force would probably have to reduce its budget. As well, all members would have to be ready to lobby the legislature to amend the law and allow for recovering fees from torrens filings in the next session.

Merrill King will report back to the task force on a quarterly basis, with further information on the actual numbers of filings and the amount of revenue generated. The next report will be in October.

5. Consideration of draft RFP for project manager position

The task force members discussed Bert Black’s draft of the RFP. They made these comments and suggestions:

Section 2.1.3 - The description of the responsibilities should emphasize that the manager plays an administrative role, facilitating the work of the task force and overseeing and supervising the work of the consultants. The wording here should be consonant with the description of services described in Section 3. In both sections, the responsibilities and duties should be as precisely detailed as possible.

Section 3 - The manager will be responsible for creating and maintaining the content for the project web site. Greg Hubinger and Bob Horton will meet to discuss the best options for hosting the web site. They will report to the task force at the September meeting.

Section 3 - The bullet point on availability should be revised to read that the manager will start work "two weeks after the award of the contract." "As soon as possible" was not precise enough. The task force has to move forward with the project quickly.

Section 5 - This section needs to be thoroughly revised. In the introduction, the terms "conversion services" and "systems operation proposal" do not seem pertinent. Throughout the section, the meanings of the terms used for the proposal and the plans need to be clarified and made consistent.

Section 9.5 - The Affidavit of Noncollusion needs to be strengthened, by additional reference in the RFP, to the effect that the manager cannot be employed or affiliated with any of the other consultants or vendors hired in the course of the project. There should be no conflict of interest.

Bill Mori and Gail Miller noted that they envisioned the possibility of being involved with the pilot projects and were concerned that their role on the RFP subcommittee created a conflict of interest. Secretary Kiffmeyer said that it was important for task force members to state publicly any possible conflicts of interest, but that it was also important not to foreclose input from members with expert knowledge. To mitigate any risk of conflict, important decisions should be made by the task force as a committee of the whole and not by individual members or subcommittees. Individuals and specifically the manager could collect information and offer recommendations; the task force would make the choices and selections.

Chuck Parsons and Marty Henschel said that there would not be a conflict so long as the task force is making the decisions. All the members were on the task force because they represented organizations or professions that were involved in the real estate recording process; that was the source of their subject matter expertise; as long as they were only offering their input to the task force, there would not be any conflicts of interest. As a result of the discussion, and without any dissent from the other members, Bill Mori and Gail Miller decided to remain on the RFP subcommittee.

Overall, the RFP should be revised to so that all the terminology should be consistent throughout. "Project manager" should be revised to "manager" and the responsibilities explicitly delineated. In addition, the final contract should include some penalty clause.

Greg Hubinger said that the notice of the RFP should be in the State Register on 20 August and t the formal announcement of the RFP in the State Register on 27 August. The RFP subcommittee will work with Bert Black to revise the current draft. Members should forward their suggestions for revisions to Bert and/or Bob Horton. By 22 August, the final draft will be distributed by email or by fax to those members without email. Chuck Parsons moved that the task force should use email or fax as the means to vote on the final draft; members would signify their approval or disapproval by responding to the email distributing the draft or by sending a fax to the LCC. Their votes would be due on 24 August. Bob Horton seconded the motion. It carried unanimously.

6. Old business

There was no old business.

7. New business

There was no new business.

8. Next meeting

The next meeting is scheduled for 13 September at 1 PM in St. Cloud, in the Board Room of the Stearns Co. Administrative Center.

9. Adjournment

Chuck Parsons moved for adjournment. Rich Little seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 11 AM.

Send comments regarding this site to:
www@commissions.leg.state.mn.us

Updated: 08/21/01(jhr)