St. John’s Church
Jane McWilliams, LWV Observer
Present: Ward 4 Councilman Jon Denison and At-Large Councilman Noah Cashman and about 20 citizens
Councilman Cashman opened the meeting saying, “We’re here mostly to hear from you. I wanted to have these meetings so we can hear from citizens; this is difficult to do at council meetings.” Council Denison then invited people to communicate their comments and concerns.
Denison responded to questions about his residence, saying his residence, 910 West 1st Street is on record in city hall. A citizen remarked that the problems Denison has had goes to the matter of character.
Another citizen thanked Denison for his work. Soon after Denison’s election, he wondered what kind of a councilperson he would be. However, he has been impressed with Denison’s diligence and though he hasn’t always agreed with him, Denison has shown that he takes his role seriously. He cautioned him to keep an open mind as the city moves forward and to focus on “what we can do together.”
The topic of the conflict with the mayor came up and several people said they hoped the council would find ways to work with him. One citizen expressed disappointment that the council decided not to have a counselor work with them because “it is amazing what you can learn when everyone looks at what their role in conflict is.” Neither Dennison nor Cashman seemed to agree. Cashman said that in mediation, there has to be a belief that everyone will come to the table, but where there is no trust, nothing can be accomplished.
There was interest in the effect of the rental ordinance on landlords. A citizen cited the example of a house in the ward which, because of a lapse in licensing, cannot be rented. The value of the house is less than the mortgage value, and there is a foreclosure in process. He had heard that none of the inspected houses have passed and we have a crisis in town. He said there other examples as well and this house and others may stand empty for a number of years. He said the density requirement raises constitutional issues and should be repealed.
Denison responded that he tried to talk about the potential problems during the adoption of the building code. We have asked staff to keep us informed if there are problems. The city attorney has been involved as well as the Human Rights Commission. Cashman said that that some point the city will get direction because of a forthcoming Supreme Court decision.
A citizen mentioned the possible reconstruction of the Ames Mill Dam. Malt-o-Meal is interested in making the area upstream from the 4th street Bridge navigable by canoes and kayaks. There are liability issues, and Malt-o-Meal is hoping that by redesigning the dam for recreation and transferring it to a non-profit (the citizen mentioned the Northfield Downtown Development Corporation as a possibility), liability is moot, since non-profits are immune. The non-profit would then lease it to the city.Asked whether work on the river would be part of the summer reconstruction of the portion of the riverside between 4th and 5th street, the citizen said no.
The capital improvement projects came up for discussion. A citizen pointed out that there is a placeholder in this year’s budget for such work. Denison said he was unsure of the next move – it could be the safety center or the library. Cashman noted that there is a Capital Improvement Subcommittee, which is looking at this. As part of the discussion about the unaccounted for investments, Cashman said the subcommittee will also be looking at the question of whether to create an advisory committee on investments as part of the long-range financial planning process.
Denison was asked what issues he sees that will bring positive change to Northfield. He thanked the person for the question and mentioned the purchase of the College City Beverage site by Upper Lakes Foods which will create jobs; replacement of the safety center which is “a disaster;” work on the transportation plan and completion of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Cashman said we need to pay attention to the land use zoning regulations. There was not a lot of connection between the last plan and ordinances. He’d like to see some improvement of Highway 19 for safety and because of the possibility of a business park being created by the city east of the hospital. He appreciates the work the business community is doing to add to the positive image of the town.
The library “is a big issue for me,” according to Denison. He likes the vision of that building having a relationship with downtown. By fixing up the city hall, there are no pressing needs there. But for him the safety center is number one. Replacing it would help our image and would assure that services are accessible.
Thanking the citizens for their interest, and promising to be accessible by phone or email, Denison closed the formal part of the meeting at 11:55.
2 Comments
Thanks, Jane. Useful, succinct summary of the Ward 4 meeting. I look forward to reading about the other ward meetings and seeing if there are any overriding issues that should move to a front burner for the council and/or the League.
I guess have to question, based on my own 4th ward meeting, the substantive value that these meetings have provided. Councilor Cashman says the idea to have them was his; the rest of the councilor’s agreed, and generally it would be a really great thing. I think there should be regular quarterly ward meetings for concerns to be heard.
But if this meeting was indicative of the rest, a more noncontroversial subject got all the comment and time from the councilors, and the truly controversial or problematic subjects were referred to staff action.
Examples: 1. C. Denisons rental history, evictions, $5000. owed to ward 4 landlords within the last year, were referred to city hall staff for verification of his current residence. 2. Mr. Hvistendahl’s serious concerns re: the implementation of the new rental ordinance, its effect on an already threatened housing market, his concerns for landlord abandoned properties and foreclosures, were also diverted, by both councilors, to staff responsibility;i.e. staff was supposed to track and report to them on problems. I would say a passive, rather than active, response.
However, the ” fun” subjects, MOM dam, kayaking possibilities, etc took up a lot of the discussion time.
The response to a resident’s comment re: the facilitating of council relationships was also not well received, as Jane noted. I would say that a response stating the willingness of ALL to come to the table was appropriate for “trust” to be established is a valid point; however, upon checking my notes from the Jan 7th council meeting, I confirmed my memory that the Mayor was the ONLY ONE who voted to go ahead with the facilitation process…
All in all, too much boilerplate, specious response, and lack of responsibility for policy decision making.