Proposed change to lake law stymied by state code

Talk about it

Councilman Mel Olson would like to add a few words to the Lake Mitchell land designation law that was passed Tuesday.

But he can’t, at least for a year.

Olson planned to introduce language either as an amendment or a separate ordinance that would alter the impact of the initiated measure that passed by a 53-47 percent margin three days ago.

City Attorney Randy Stiles, after examining the language Olson had come up with, said under state law, nothing can be done for a year, Olson said Thursday afternoon. Here is what Olson had proposed:

“Nothing in this ordinance applies to any municipally owned property that was dedicated to another public purpose at variance to the purposes previously mentioned in this ordinance if that property was dedicated to another public purpose prior to June 1, 2010.”

Olson asked Stiles to shape the language into a legal form but was told it had to be placed on hold for 12 months. State law says “No initiated ordinance or resolution may be amended or repealed by the governing body of a municipality until at least one year has passed from its effective date.”

The new ordinance is scheduled to be approved by the Mitchell City Council during a special meeting at City Hall at noon today. The council will canvass the votes from Tuesday’s election, which also overturned a council decision to allow the off-sale of hard liquor on Sundays, and then enact the law approved by voters. The meeting, which will likely be very brief, is open to the public.

Olson said he came up with the idea because of a concern that the new law may unintentionally convert city facilities to park land, which could cause problems with grants, burials or other activities at the city-owned airport, water treatment plant, cemetery, golf course and land where the National Guard base is located.

He has repeatedly argued that the petition language was imprecise and could cause trouble down the road.

He said he wanted to enact another ordinance or add to it or pass an ordinance that clarified these points. “It’s best, even if people think it’s silly, to be absolutely clear,” Olson said.

He also said he thinks the City Council may have the power to pass an ordinance to overturn or ignore the ordinance approved by voters Tuesday.

“I think, and again I have to defer to Randy, I think we could do that,” Olson said. “But again, people voted for this. And people should know they’re not getting protection for the trees.”

Repeating an argument he made at Monday’s council meeting, he said while the land will be classified as park once the council approves the votes, nothing says what kind of park.

“There are many, quoteunquote, parks, that don’t involve trees. I do think it’s tremendously ironic that we’re going to be trusted not to build a ballpark or tear down the trees … when we weren’t trusted,” Olson said. “This does not protect the trees. It protects the land but not the trees.”

The citizens’ effort came on the heels of a proposed swap of city-owned property near the lake for some property near the new soccer complex. When residents feared a stand of trees along North Harmon Drive could be placed in danger, they packed a council meeting to persuade the council to back away from the plan.

This summer, the land use petition was brought to the city and then placed on the Nov. 2 ballot. Olson said he felt the public vote was a step too far.

“I guess I could see the ordinance if we went ahead with the land swap,” Olson said. “But we didn’t.

“This land swap idea, frankly, wasn’t a very good idea. And the city recognized that after the public input.”

Olson said he wonders what people expect from the council. “Clairvoyance is now a prerequisite for public office?” he asked.

Olson said he also thinks the city should have the option to sell some small pieces of cityowned property that are not perceived or used as public access.

During a tour of the lake property earlier this year, the council was shown a few small pieces of land that belong to the city. Some are located between two homes and are maintained as private property; the nearby residents may not even be aware they are mowing and grooming public property, Olson said.

“There is a narrow strip around South Harmon Drive, and maybe one or two more,” he said. “Those folks are getting free enjoyment of community property.”

Perhaps those residents would like to buy the land, Olson said. If not, he wonders if the public should be allowed to use the city-owned land.

Olson said he also wonders if the city could use some of the land by the lake for a satellite fire station.

“I really think we need another fire station. Why should we, we the city, have to buy additional land if we want to put up a fire station, for instance?” he said. “We need to decide if we want to go south or north. If we go north, I don’t understand why taxpayers should be on the hook.”

Council President Jeff Smith said he was aware Olson was considering offering the amendment or new ordinance but said he was told it couldn’t be done until 2011.

“I guess I just want to look at everything it’s going to imply and affect, what it truly does mean,” Smith said.

Bob Porter, one of the chief petitioners for the land designation, declined to comment. Another petitioner, Mike Kuchera, could not be reached for comment.

Tags: city council, mel olson, lake mitchell land designation, lake mitchell, news, local, fccnetwork, politics