Jane B McWilliams, LWV Observer
Councilor Jim Pokorney was absent
City Planner Dan Olson asked for direction for completing the process of creating the Land Development Code (LDC), regulations which will implement the recently adopted (November 2008) Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
An advisory group composed of representatives of several city boards and commissions, local architects, engineers, contractors, and a member of the Rice County Soil and Water Conservation Board, have been meeting with city staff since August 2008. They provided comments on the drafts of the LDC. The staff and the consultant reviewed these and either incorporated them into the text or explained to the group why the comments were not included. Liaisons to the boards and commissions were directed by staff to have their group review the draft prior to the final meeting of the Advisory Group on May 8, 2009. However, not all boards and commissions received copies and haven’t been able to weigh in on the test.
Recently, members of several boards and commissions expressed a desire to review the LDC draft separately from the Advisory Group. The staff recommendation opposed this step and suggested several alternative processes for the final review. Councilor Rhonda Pownell disagreed with sending the document to boards and committees, saying the Advisory Group had looked at the document thoroughly. Council Betsey Buckheit noted that the boards and commissions can help supplement the work so the Planning Commission can apply their expertise to the relevant portions of the LDC. An important step is assuring that the regulations will achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. “At no time did the Advisory Group look at the goals and determine whether the regulations carry them out. The boards and commissions know what the objectives are.” Saying that the council should take their time and assure the document is usable, Councilor Kris Vohs added that he wanted to hear specifically from the Environmental Quality Commission. Councilor Erica Zweifel pointed out that the EQC had been asking to see the regulations since January and wants to look at it “before it is set in cement.”
Mayor Mary Rossing suggested that the documents go back to the boards and commissions and that they be asked to concentrate on their part of the regulations. Rossing said meanwhile, there can be community meetings. “We want to avoid taking the finished product to the public” with the implication that their input is irrelevant. She asked Councilors Zweifel and Buckheit to meet with Planner Olson to prepare a recommendation for the first council meeting in June for how the boards and commissions will be asked to review and comment on the sections relevant to their responsibility. In response to Pownell’s question about the role of the Advisory Group, Buckheit suggested they might serve as “consultants” if needed. The consensus seemed to be that even with additional review by boards and commissions, the process can be completed in October.
Members of the Safety Center Task Force sat with the council to discuss the status of their work. Following review of a number of possibilities, the group is considering four sites: the current one (for the police department only); a combined center on the Valley Co-op site; property behind Perkins Restaurant for a combined center; and the Furlong GM Auto site, should it become available. Two project budgets were provided by the consultant Wold Architects and Engineers, with the difference in cost based primarily on the size of two different facilities. The cost of site purchase was not included in the estimates both of which were close to $10,000,000.
Ray Cox, a task force member, recommended that the city go to the voters for approval of funding for the project. Cox urged the city to consider doing a survey to “take the pulse” of the public for support of project in preparation for developing a referendum. The earliest a vote might be taken is fall 2009, and a significant educational process would precede this. Cox also suggested that the council appoint a “Vote Yes” committee to develop a work plan and timeline. David Hvistendahl spoke at length about the problems he sees with the current building, including the location in the flood plain, lack of room for expansion and the serious problems remodeling the building. Hvistendahl said a video documenting the condition of the present building and the problems police and fire department staff have working there would help citizens understand the need for new facilities. Following further study, the task force will make recommendations later this month or early June.
Councilor Zweifel did a brief presentation explaining the “Natural Step Framework,” a process for moving toward sustainability in all aspects of city services and operations. She had attended a conference in St. Paul recently to learn of ways to help the council toward its goal of economic, social and environmental sustainability. There is a local resource, the Alliance for Sustainability, whose president, Terry Gips, would be a possible speaker for a town hall meeting. Administrator Wallinski said possibly a special meeting in June could be planned for this. For more information: http://www.thenaturalstep.org/
Economic Development Director Jody Gunderson explained the Economic Development Authority’s interest in working on developing a consistent “brand identity” for the city and sought council interest in this effort. The council had many questions about this project.
Mayor Rossing reported that she had met with Park and Recreation Board Chair Rick Vanasek and member Nathan Knutson to discuss how the city should move ahead on the skateboard plaza issue. The council is asked to postpone deciding on the site so that the PRAB might review their priorities, which they will discuss at their meeting on May 12.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
ADDENDUM: At the Tuesday, May 12 meeting of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Alice Thomas presented a draft of possible components of recommendations for the council for the revision process of the regulations. These included review by relevant boards and commissions. The commission revised this slightly and asked Thomas, and Commissioners Suzanne Nakasian and Tracy Davis to prepare a plan and time line for the commission for their next meeting. A strong theme during the commission’s discussion was maximum exposure of the regulations to public review and maximum opportunity for public response before completion of the large document. At the request of the League observer, the draft document will be available on the city’s web site in the near future.
2 Comments
Jane: I was also at this meeting, as you know, and this would be a good way to see if people are reading these observer reports, and what actual service they are providing…
We have talked many times about the content of the reports and how it should be presented… The person who attends for the League is called an ‘observer’, but mostly we report.
What is the most helpful position ? is it strict reportage, or is there a minimum of interpretation as to what League members should be looking at, or interested in?
If League’s mission is concerned with ‘best practices’ how can observers steer League members to issues of concern without being accused of prejudicial thinking?
You and I have had these conversations; is there a way to engage the membership/board on these issues, on this site?
Maybe it should be a Board discussion first? or would the Board prefer the initial comments come up from the general membership.
Good questions, Kiffi. I agree, it would be good for the board to talk about the observer program and to review whatever policies we have for observers and evaluate the program. That would provide welcome direction to at least one observer – me!
I have been operating under the assumption that my reports here should be as factual as I can make them, and that there should be no options or judgments in them. On the other hand, as observer, if I see things at council meetings which I think may be of concern to LWV members, be they procedural or in the context of our adopted positions, I should notify the president who will take the matter up with the board.( An example is the concern I had with the report of the council’s subcommittee dealing with boards and committees. Nothing has come of that effort, either within or outside the League, however.)
I doubt that many people actually read these reports, so one might ask what their value is even as quasi- journalistic pieces. It has been a good discipline for me, taking notes and then writing up the report – but that seems a bit self-indulgent! It is possible that having Georgiana at the Rice Councy Commissioners’ meetings, and either you or me at City Council meetings, providing a kind of consistent citizen presence, affects the conduct of the elected officials’ business – but I often wonder about that!
The League’s Annual Meeting is often the time when such organizational issues are raised and discussed, but this year’s wasn’t set up for that purpose. Maybe, if the board is holding a planning retreat this spring, we could ask them to take up your questions.