Second Tuesday would ordinarily be a conflict w/Bridgewater Township monthly meeting. However, Clerk Janalee Cooper reminds me that Bridgewater has changed its monthly meeting to second Wednesday. All in all, it will be a busy week.

At last night’s council meeting , item#9 on the regular agenda was a motion to “Approve Annexation Policy Positions”.

Brian O’Connell presented the issue to the council , telling them that this was an effort to present “… documented thought re: what the city thinks its position is…” and he went on to explain that he had prepared this document from his notes of the Council’s work session on annexation. He asked, “Does this document accurately reflect what we talked about that night?”

This was a fascinating discussion for any small town politicos or policy wonks.

The council’s new City Attorney, Chris Hood, began by saying that there are lots of contingencies or specific circumstances (re: annexations), and that there was a need to reserve discretion to remain flexible.
He then said he did not see a need for a ‘policy’, and recommended that each annexation be looked at with specificity.

Mayor Rossing asked if there was a need for such a policy now. Attny. Hood replied that he felt that it was better to reply on “broader principles” as a base. ( I assume he meant Comprehensive Plan, etc.)

Councilor Denison asked for comparisons with other cities; Mr, Hood replied that TYPICALLY such policies are NOT seen in other cities, and that maybe those other cities were not as “process oriented ” as NF; the desire for a policy maybe being an outgrowth of that “process oriented” characteristic, but reiterated again, no, typically NOT seen.

Councilor Buckheit could see a value as to establishing a baseline for policy decisions, recognizing the guidance of the Comp. Plan.
Councilor Zweifel felt a matrix format would be more useful as an evaluation tool.
Mayor Rossing emphasized that it was good to have a policy document that expressed the COUNCIL’S policy( i.e. speaking in a unified voice).
Councilor Pokorney made a good point that the current issues of Waterford and Bridgewater should not be a part of this document; it should be “general”. He wanted to be sure this was not seen as “staff driven”, saying “we (council) spent over an hour ( i think he meant at their work session) discussing this subject”.

Attny Hood reminded all that in the end, annexation is largely guided by MN statutes, and the vote was unanimous to pursue a policy document.

A fascinating discussion…

I posted a comment on Tracy’s blog yesterday, that I will summarize here.

I was disappointed at the 5-1 Planning Commission vote recommending the annexation on Jan. 7. If Ron Griffith and Ross Currier had been on the Commission, I dare say things would have turned out differently. And, if the violation of open meeting law had come to light earlier, more PC members might have been hesitant to rubber stamp the staff recommendation.

The Council vote Feb. 9 was just as disappointing. Buckheit did object to the materials in the packet as more propaganda than fact, but then voted to give preliminary approval anyway. Jon Denison made the motion and Rhonda Pownell seconded it, as has become the routine.

That would be a ‘good faith’ action that might satisfy at least one part of this process.

Then, of course, there is the issue of the fact that part of this annexation area is not within the boundaries of the current annexation agreement.

Dealing favorably for all parties with those two issues might move the entire process along…

Hoisington Koegler, the planning consultants that have been hired by the city to master plan the 530 Acres (and additionally the Prawer-Gill properties if that annexation goes ahead) is holding a design charette today and tomorrow , at the South main building of the Community Resource Bank, and THERE IS A PUBLIC COMPONENT OF THE PROCESS FROM 4-6 PM EACH DAY. The public portion is a “pin-up session” to gather input or reaction to the initial planning ideas.

There was virtually no promotion of the public part of this charette process although the consulting firm was clear about their intent for that to occur, and at this late time it is hoped that enough people will find out about it and become involved to benefit the process.

The flat out statement that has been made is that the agreement will have to be re-negotiated. So what should the process be?

Should the annexation be put on hold by the City/NF, until they have discussion with the Bridgewater supervisors? Should the B’water supervisors have to poll their constitutents before they come to a conclusion with Northfield?

If B’water, et al, does not wish to acquiesce, should NF deny the request?

And so, we have Chair Tracy Davis on KYMN Saturday morning, saying that people had concerns but only one speaker was “flat out” opposed. I guess that was me.

To be clear, I accept annexation as a fact of life. The township and the City signed an agreement in 1999 which set the terms for annexations for the next 20 years. As Supervisor Kathleen Doran Norton said in her statement at the hearing, Sec. V says the City will not request annexation except under terms of this agreement. This annexation is in violation of our agreement and I oppose it.

The Northfield Planning Commission got an earful Tuesday night from farmers, fishermen, scientists and businessmen, all of whom were concerned about one thing: the potential annexation of land in Bridgewater Township.

But despite a number of wide-ranging worries, some speakers at the commission’s packed public hearing over the proposed, 456-acre annexation west of the city expressed a little optimism about the project — if it is done right.

The committee that chose Flaherty & Hood over Maren Swanson really knew what they were doing. This firm has been doing work on annexation for Northfield for a couple years at least. They posed the language for a bill carried by Sen. Bakk to put townships at even more of a disadvantage. We fought that bill all last session.

The Winona Post report Griff provided gives just one example of Chris Hood’s work. I suppose this firm begins working for the City of Northfield Jan. 1.

Here’s the question: Can the Planning Commission, a very principled and thoughtful group, comment on the annexation in a qualified manner which says their approval is based on the uses the land is eminently suited for and eventually put to over the next 10-50 years, and even beyond?

That 12/26/2004 article is here: City wants closed-door meeting with Wilson Township officials.

The relevance here is that the attny for the city who is requesting a closed door meeting is Chris Hood, the newly selected candidate for NF City Attorney. An attorney must work for their client; that is their obligation; the question here is should that obligation go against recognized state law?

The recognized authority on open meeting law, Mark Anfinson, says in the article that he finds it ludicrous that this would even be suggested in this instance, as it is  so clearly inappropriate in the law…

Can I get Shakespearean ? , and say “oh, what tangled webs we weave”…

http://www.northfieldnews.com/photos/ricecrkrec_13nov09.pdf

linked to from:

http://www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=50585

Any chance of finding this report posted online for our perusal?

The Park and Recreation Advisory Board letter is on pages 48-49.

The Environmental Quality Commission recommendations are on pages 50-52.

At its meeting on Sept. 14, the Northfield City Council asked three of its boards and commissions to weigh in on the proposed annexation of 456 acres of land in Bridgewater Township owned by Kenneth Prawer and Robert Gill. This week, the city got its answers — from a few expected sources, and at least one unexpected one. The information the boards returned to the council will be reviewed at the Planning Commission’s meeting Tuesday.

The recommendation, which passed 4-2 at the EDA’s regular meeting, will be sent to the council for consideration.

…

Board member Victor Summa and EDA Vice President Steve Engler both voted against the measure, saying that the board did not have adequate time to review the information presented to the board by city staff and ask questions. “I wasn’t voting against the proposal, I was voting against the process,” Engler said after the meeting.

SEQUENCE: A NNews reporter told me on about Nov. 5 that there was a public hearing on Gill/Prawer set for Nov. 24. I checked with some Planning Commission members who knew nothing of this and did not believe such a date had been set. I then asked Joel Walinski about this after our stream protection meeting at St. Olaf on Friday, Nov. 6. He checked his calendar and confirmed the date.

Dan Olson confirmed the date when members of the Planning Commission asked him about it at their meeting Nov. 10.

The Planning Commission had no materials to go on at that time. If they had been able to move it to a later date they really should have, given the problem of timing it for 2 days before Thanksgiving. There was one public notice (last Saturday paper) and evidently staff thinks they have handled it correctly.

See you the night of Nov. 24, I hope.

Now that would be considered a big revolt, but I think it would be correct for them to do so, after all the Public Hearing is theirs to conduct and they should feel in command of the pertinent materials.

After all the extreme discontent with the Land Development Code, I think they’re in a ‘testy’ mood anyway, they’ve been having extra meetings for months.

Just a heads up: the first meeting of the Consultant Group Steering Committee and the EDA, on the “Northwest Territories” annexation  (530 Ac. in Greenvale) is from 6-8 PM tonight, Council Chambers.