Author: <span>Tracy Davis</span>

In Minnesota, cities take one of two basic forms: statutory cities, which operate as enabled in a section of Minnesota state law, and charter cities, which operate under a local charter. Northfield is one of the latter, primarily because Northfield was established as a city before Minnesota was established as a state. The City Charter is the “constitution” of Northfield’s city government.

Charter cities, sometimes referred to as “home-rule” cities, are allowed to establish any form of governance they choose. Typically this is either a council-manager or mayor-council system. Under the mayor-council system, government may be further defined as a “weak mayor” ceremonial form, or a “strong mayor” executive form. Our current charter states that Northfield has a mayor-council form of government; Northfield is one of only four Minnesota cities (the others are Duluth, St. Cloud, and St. Paul) which is technically considered to have a “strong mayor” system. See the League of Minnesota Cities for more definition of forms of city government organization in Minnesota.

The Charter Commission

Northfield’s Charter Commission is, as stated on its page of the City website, “responsible for reviewing and revising the City Charter to ensure that it meets all applicable State and Federal laws and meets the needs of the citizens of Northfield.” The Charter Commission is fundamentally different from other City boards and commissions. It is not an advisory board; it’s an independent political subdivision. Members are appointed by a district court judge, not by anyone elected, appointed, or employed by the City. Serving on the current Charter Commission are Bill Beck, Betsey Buckheit, Peter Dahlen, David Emery, Jayne Hager Dee, Victor Summa, and Elaine Thurston.

Recent History

In November 2001, Northfield’s ballot contained a referendum to change from a mayor-council system to a council-manager system, largely because the function and job description of the “city administrator” was moving closer and closer to what is usually considered to be that of a “city manager”. Voters rejected that referendum, choosing to maintain the current form of government. Okay. Except that the issue that prompted the referendum—that City Hall was functioning in a structurally different manner than what is described in the City Charter—still existed.

It’s official: A SEVEN-RING CIRCUS. After yesterday’s filing deadline, we now have seven candidates for the Mayor of Northfield, listed here in alphabetical order: Jon Denison Paul Hager David Hvistendahl…

It’s been a long haul. The current Planning Commission, of which I am a member, began the revision of Northfield’s Comprehensive Plan two years ago, in the summer of 2006. Consultant ACP Visioning & Planning was hired at the end of November of that year, and we all thought we’d have the Plan and the associated Land Development Regulations (zoning ordinances) revised by the end of 2007.

So why is it taking so long?

First, a disclaimer. I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY STAFF. I’m giving my interpretation of the events. Other commissioners and city staff will, undoubtedly, have a different view of things. I hope they chime in if they disagree.

There are several reasons the process has taken longer than anticipated. There are two revisions taking place in tandem – the Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Development Regulations. These are two separate documents, with the Comp Plan providing the overarching vision, and the Regs providing the specific ordinances controlling land use. The Comprehensive Plan was last revised in 2001. The overall vision expressed in the 2001 Plan is still relevant, but the intervening years have pointed out the need for some clarification. More significantly, the Land Development Regulations, which have evolved over a long period of time, have not been consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

For instance, our Comp Plan may say “no coal plants next to elementary schools”, but if there is no specific, detailed ordinance that applies to that situation, or a conflict in the ordinances, a coal plant next to an elementary school might be legally permissible. (Pardon my hyperbolic example but I wanted to make a point without picking on anyone’s pet issue.)