Jane McWilliams, LWV Observer
The city staff is holding 45-minute information sessions for candidates for mayor and council prior to council meetings in order to familiarize them with city matters such as property taxes, the budget, etc. Community Development Director Brian O’Connell tonight explained annexation, the procedure under state law by which municipal boundaries are adjusted to accommodate growth and provide municipal services. Northfield has annexation agreements with Bridgewater, Northfield and Waterford Townships (the agreement with Greenvale Township expired in 2005). These vary in content, but address such issues as the length of the agreement, the pace and permitted acreage of annexation, and terms of compensation for tax revenue lost to townships. He displayed the current cost to the city of previous annexations tax reimbursement (offsetting the townships’ tax loss), which, for 2008, is $118,567.
Two items on the council’s agenda received the most discussion: the proposed Northfield Comprehensive Transportation Study and a recommendation from the Charter Commission. In neither case did the council vote to approve the proposal.
City Engineer Katy Gehler reported that the group proposing the transportation study had evaluated and considered 10 previous studies and they incorporated relevant findings from them in it. This plan becomes the sole document to guide future decisions. An issue in previous studies and in the present one is extending North Avenue east to connect with Highway 3. When it came to the council earlier, the study recommended that a feasibility study be done on this in the short term. With development in the northwest area of the city, there is pressure on Lincoln Parkway and Greenvale Avenue, which the North Avenue extension could relieve. Because of concerns raised at the council’s September 22 work session, the plan was revised to no longer include the feasibility study of the extension in the short term. Staff pointed out that at some future time, it would be important to consider this east-west route.
Several members of the council as well as members of the public raised concern that in 1993 the city had vacated the land necessary to extend the road and because a park and residential development and other obstacles prevent extension, they are against it. Councilman Arnie Nelson said that to “make that change now would be utterly ridiculous. The change is more complicated than just the neighborhood,” referring to the railroad and necessity to annex Waterford Township land. Suzie Nakasian, a member of the Planning Commission, pointed out inconsistencies between the maps in the transportation study and those in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan the commission will soon bring to the council. She added that the commission had not had an opportunity to review the transportation study. Following questions about how approval of the two plans would be phased, the council voted to postpone approving the Comprehensive Transportation Plan indefinitely. (The Planning Commission was scheduled to put the final touches on the Comprehensive Plan at their October 7 meeting.)
The council took up an amendment to the city’s charter which would provide that control of the operation of any medical facilities owned by the city, such as hospitals, convalescent homes, nursing homes, may not be conveyed to any entity other than the hospital board “unless the essential terms of such transfer are approved by an ordinance unanimously adopted by all members of the council or by a majority of voters. . . “
At a previous meeting, the amendment was removed from the consent agenda for special consideration. But then the motion for approval died for lack of a second. Although they had missed the 30-day window following the public hearing for acting upon it, it appeared on the regular agenda at this meeting. According to City Attorney Maren Swanson, missing the deadline wasn’t important.
There appeared to be little explicit objection to the essential proposal except for the requirement that there be a unanimous vote for approval should the control of operations be changed at some date. Swanson said the seriousness of the decision requires a unanimous vote and advised the council, if they think it requires a different vote, to send it back to the Charter Commission. (According to Councilman Dixon Bond, The proposed amendment grew out of an incident several years ago when the council was asked to approve making the hospital a non-profit entity, a proposal which they did not approve. Bond said the Hospital Board has no position on the amendment. Because he serves on the hospital board, Bond did not take part the council discussion, but was contacted by the observer later for this history.) Mayor Lee Lansing said he would like to see it enacted, that perhaps such a serious matter should go to the voters.
The motion for approval failed with Davis, Denison, Bond, Pokorney and Vohs voting no and Lansing and Nelson voting in favor. Councilman Scott Davis asked whether they should give guidance to the Charter Commission. Lansing said they would take it up at a work session.
The council approved the second reading of the rental ordinance, appointment of Councilman Davis and Jody Gunderson, EDA Director to the Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board and Steve Swanson to the Human Rights Commission, and held two special assessment hearings (for the Woodley Street and the Lincoln Street and related projects).
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Comments
Jane : thank you once again for your report;I'll be interested to see if there are comments commenting on the form, i.e. the focus on the most important items vs. a report of the entire meeting.
On a specific issue, that of the charter hospital amendment, I did not catch the city attorney's reasoning on why it did not matter that the council had missed the statutorily mandated vote on the amendment, did you?
Since it was on the 9.15 meeting agenda which would have been within the 30 day mandate, but then not voted on by the death of the motion for lack of a second, it cannot be that they "just" missed it; they either chose to ignore it , or were unaware of the 30 day mandate in the statute ... Was the city attorney at that meeting ? If so, did she warn them about the statute?
Jane: in addition to my questions in my previous comment , I would like to add this: After reading the editorial (re: transportation plan, and staff vs. planning Commission comments) and the article on the Charter Commission's hospital amendment, I am glad that people in this town have a place to read a factual and unbiased report: HERE!
Now the job is for LWV to get citizens to regularly check this site for all the observer reports of the public bodies they have an interest in, and possibly we'll be able to fill out our observer corps that way.