After vote, little change predicted

• Image

The trees pictured here along North Harmon Drive in Mitchell were the cause of a controversy that led to Tuesday’s vote on land use around Lake Mitchell. (Chris Huber/Republic Photo)

Talk about it

The vote is over and numerous acres of city-owned land near Lake Mitchell are “permanently dedicated for public use as parks.”

What difference will that make for how the city treats and cares for that land?

Not much, according to city officials.

Mitchell voters decided to preserve land that abuts Lake Mitchell by a 53-47 percent margin Tuesday. The initiated measure was approved 2,806 to 2,525.

The Mitchell City Council will hold a special meeting, most likely at noon Friday at City Hall, to canvass the votes and pass a resolution accepting the totals. Once it does so, according to Finance Officer Marilyn Wilson, the initiated measure becomes city law.

The Public Works Department has handled issues with the water and shoreline at Lake Mitchell while the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Department has been charged with dealing with recreational issues.

Public Works Director Tim McGannon said he thinks the designation of the land makes little difference on how city workers will perform their jobs. He said the departments have always communicated and worked well together.

“If two department heads can’t work together, then we have a bigger problem,” McGannon said.

He said he doesn’t think there is any legal barrier to Public Works employees doing work on land designated as park property.

McGannon said any paperwork issues can be addressed without causing a problem.

“I think we have to work through all that,” he said.

Parks and Recreation Director Dusty Rodiek also predicts no change despite the new classification.

“Public Works will still be responsible for the lake itself and the shoreline stabilization,” Rodiek said. “We work really well together.”

Mayor Lou Sebert said there may be some questions surrounding the city’s use of the land, but he’s not sure what they are and when they may arise.

“Boy, you better ask the people who wrote the bill,” Sebert said Wednesday. “As far as I’m concerned, that land is considered park land. As far as I’m concerned, we need some legal advice.”

Sebert said the city has no idea how much land is now considered permanent park property, especially since he feels the use of the term “abuts” means land near the lake is also tied to the designation.

He said the cemetery, golf course, airport, water treatment plant and the cityowned land beneath the National Guard base are all now park land because of the vote.

Sebert noted that some of the land, including 55 acres known as Firesteel Park, was already classified as park land.

But he said what impact that will have on how the land is dealt with remains a mystery.

“It’s too early for me to tell you,” Sebert said. “I have no ideas.”

City Attorney Randy Stiles said Wednesday that the decision blocks all potential sale, trade or other exchange of the city-owned property by the lake.

“It stops that property from being sold, traded or whatever,” Stiles said.

Sherry Stilley, who was one of the people who proposed the ballot question, said she doesn’t think it will block all development at the lake.

“There will be because there are lots for sale right now, there are private lots for sale,” Stilley said.

Stiles said as he recalls the petition and his own explanation for the ballot, the city could probably install a boat dock or other recreational facility in the area. Stiles’ explanation refers to “nature trails, hiking trails and similar uses.”

Of course, one point raised by Councilman Mel Olson at Monday night’s City Council meeting may also be valid.

According to Olson, the park designation is not defined, so the city could create a ballfield there or use it for other related purposes. It could pave a large area of the park land and create a skateboard park.

And the city could, although it has no plans to do so, cut down all the trees for any reason it so decides, Olson said.

While the land is now considered park property, there was nothing in the petition to protect the trees that were at the root of this months-long dispute between citizens and their council.

Stilley said she thinks the trees are safe, no matter what the legal definition of the land is or how the petition was phrased.

“I don’t think that’s a valid threat,” she said.

Tags: election 2010, park land, news, local