Tag Archives: duluth city council

In Which Councilor Fosle Is Very Happy: Duluth City Council Notes, 3/24/14

It was a fast and rather uneventful night in the Duluth City Council Chamber on Monday. The meeting opened with a public hearing on proposed tax increment financing (TIF) for the planned rehabilitation of the former Lincoln Park Middle School into housing units and community space. Mr. Rick Ball from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Mr. Andy Hughes of development partner Sherman Associates gave a brief overview and fielded questions, explaining that the lower-than-market-rate rents in the building did not make it financially feasible without tax help. Several Councilors wanted to be sure the TIF qualification had passed a test run by an outside agency, which it had, though the discussion didn’t go much further than that; the public meeting will remain open at the next meeting.

The Council then received updates on various ongoing issues. CAO Montgomery briefed them on frozen waterlines, which have been unusually common this winter due to the cold temperatures, and hoped for some relief in the coming weeks. Councilor Gardner gave a status update on proposed charter revisions to fill Council vacancies; she said the special election changes would be “sticky,” but said the committee had another meeting on Friday. Councilor Larson said that U.S. Sen. Al Franken would be willing to take up legislation on the logging truck rerouting plan when it came forward. The community speakers were both repeats, though Ms. Alison Clark’s continued push for a lakefront Lakewalk by Beacon Pointe included a pointed question over how much a paved path there would cost.

Councilor Fosle pulled one resolution off the consent agenda, but only to offer his praise for the administration: after six years of endless lobbying, the city has finally brought in a consultant to study its fleet services operations. Councilor Fosle has long contended that the city spends far too much in this department, and was pleased to see the review would be done by an out-of-state consultant with no skin in the game. Councilor Gardner thanked Councilor Fosle for his persistence, and Councilor Hanson expressed his confidence that savings would cover the expenditures for the review. It passed unanimously, as did the rest of the consent agenda. The review, according to CAO Montgomery, should be done by the end of summer.

Naturally, the next resolution up was a purchase of several trucks for the city, and a laughing Councilor Fosle turned around and said “this is exactly what I’m talking about,” noting the low mileage on the three trucks being replaced. CAO Montgomery explained that the trucks were high-wear vehicles and that the new ones were slightly larger, while Councilor Sipress gave a nod to Councilor Fosle’s concerns but said he’d show his support for the administration’s planned review by voting in good faith on these trucks. The resolution passed 8-1.

The Council then appointed Councilor Sipress to the Public Utilities Commission, an exercise that involved a lot of repetition of nice words about Councilor Sipress. He committed himself to the Commission for his full term, which pleased Councilor Julsrud; Councilor Hanson terrorized the Council by asking if they’d use ranked-choice voting if someone else were to enter the race, and Councilor Filipovich, now a battle-scarred veteran of the Commission after his appointment two months ago, welcomed the new junior member aboard after a 9-0 vote in his favor.

Once again a grant application for a portion of the cross-city mountain bike trail was on the agenda, and as usual it inspired some mild dissent, with Councilor Hanson joining Councilor Fosle in the ‘no’ column, saying the city’s $63,000 matching contribution would be better used filling potholes. President Krug noted that these funds had to come out of a portion of the parks budget reserved for capital projects, and the resolution passed 7-2.

Two citizen speakers came forward on the next resolution, which implemented a master plan for the Gary-New Duluth Recreation Area; Mr. Dan Hinnenkamp and Mr. Mark Boben, both longtime activists in the area, shared their excitement for the project. Mr. Boben explained that the project would include new soccer fields, picnic areas, a skating rink, a community garden, a dog park, basketball courts, and a skate park—this last feature being one of the highlights, with professional planners coming in to create the design. (Mr. Hinnenkamp said that he’d driven by the current, mediocre skate park recently and saw a group of boys who had shoveled off three feet of snow so they could use it.) Councilor Larson praised Councilor Fosle for his involvement throughout the planning process, and he in turn praised Mr. Boben’s leadership and commitment. The resolution passed unanimously.

In the closing comments, Councilor Russ announced that a plan to formally establish Ranya, Iraq as a Duluth Sister City would be coming forward at the next meeting. Councilor Larson previewed a “trails damage ordinance” she planned to introduce in April, which will seek to educate citizens on how to protect trails and use them as intended. She also asked about results from the recent housing summit, and was promised a follow-up by CAO Montgomery. Councilor Fosle closed the meeting by plugging a steering committee meeting on ATV trails on March 31 at the Fire Training Center at 6:00 PM, and wished his mother a happy birthday and passing along his love.

It was a quick and painless night in the Council Chamber, and even Councilor Fosle, usually in the minority, was all smiles as he moved through a pair of resolutions he’d long worked for. It’s an encouraging sign: it would be easy for everyone else in the room to marginalize him, but instead they’re taking up some of his ideas, and that makes him happy to work with them. The collegial Council will enjoy two weeks off before returning to solve all of Duluth’s ills, and hopefully all the snow will melt away in that time. Perhaps then someone can take down the reindeer and the Christmas tree still sitting atop the fountain in Government Plaza…

Saving the Seaway: Duluth City Council Notes, 3/10/14

The Duluth City Council had a fairly tame agenda on Monday night, and between hockey-caused exhaustion and a busy workday, I settled for following Monday night’s City Council meeting from home.

The opening comments were straightforward, and brushed on a handful of open Council issues. Councilor Julsrud plugged two upcoming meetings, one at 6:30 on March 20 at Good Shepard Lutheran Church in Lakeside to discuss soil testing and plans for a dog park in the neighborhood, and the other at 6:00 on March 27 at Hartley Nature Center over future plans for trails in Hartley Park. Councilor Gardner also gave a brief update on the move toward a charter amendment to resolve issues with council vacancy appointments, saying the committee charged with drafting the changes had some research to work with and would be meeting soon.

After some procedural wrangling and the pulling of several finance resolutions so as to allow more time for public notification, the Council moved into its only big agenda item of the evening, a $230,000 loan to the Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to rescue the blighted Seaway Hotel in Lincoln Park. The Seaway has been condemned by the city in the past and faces serious structural issues, but continues to operate over 60 low-income housing units, and needs a new owner to realistically continue to operate. Three citizen speakers came forward to support the loan, saying the need was pressing, and that a revitalization could be a catalyst to help improve one of Duluth’s more depressed areas. They also stressed the inclusion of tenants in the meetings to decide the Seaway’s future.

Councilor Larson was the first Councilor to declare her support, noting the efficiency of the investment—about $3,000 per unit—and the potential costs of failure to act. Councilor Russ agreed and noted the diversity of groups involved in the effort, while Councilor Filipovich added an environmental angle to the discussion, saying refurbishment was better than demolition. Councilor Fosle, conceding he was likely the lone ‘no’ vote, expressed his doubts: the HRA has a budget of over $10 million, yet taxpayers are being left with the bill; the loan was “forgivable;” and other businesses in the region might not see any incentive to do anything, leaving then neighborhood unchanged. He was especially concerned about projections that had the project in the red for at least three years, perhaps forever, and insisted that it is “not the government’s job to buy dilapidated buildings. This is why people get mad at government.”

Councilor Hanson followed up on Councilor Fosle’s words, and asked CAO Montgomery if the loan really was “forgivable.” Montgomery did not quite answer the question, though he did point out that there was revenue to be made both from the building’s operations and in its eventual sale. He also conceded that there was a real chance the Seaway would operate in the red, but both he and Councilor Sipress insisted that the benefits of an improved Seaway would outweigh the costs. The whole plan was contingent on state grants, they explained, and the HRA is a catalyst for the process that makes an eventual payoff “more probable.”

Councilor Larson offered to talk to Councilor Hanson about the details later, but this didn’t quite quell his concerns, and he proposed an amendment to the resolution that would insist that the eventual liquidation of the building be done at a “fair market rate.” President Krug (via Atty. Johnson) and CAO Montgomery were quick to shoot this idea down, explaining that an amendment would force the plan back to the Development Authority. The Seaway “would have been sold long ago” if it were an “easy deal,” Montgomery explained, and the building would forever be problematic unless it got a “government kickstart.” He also wondered how they would define a “fair market rate,” and President Krug closed the comments by saying that the Seaway was a problem that needed a solution before anything else could be done to rehabilitate Lincoln Park.

Councilor Hanson voted for the resolution, and it passed 8-1, with Councilor Fosle as the lone dissenter. During the closing comments he explained himself further, and appeared to disagree with the narrative presented by some Councilors in which a refurbished Seaway would lift up the entire neighborhood. The “deep cancer” at play here, he said while citing his experience as a resident of and worker in Lincoln Park, is the presence of many “liquor establishments” along the block that blight the entire area. He demanded better management and responsiveness to crime in the neighborhood, and said it “will take more public investment” to turn things around; hence his frustration that the HRA was not picking up more of the tab, though this was a good “first surgical step.”

The only other discussion involved three ordinances amending the city code. Councilor Fosle made some cryptic comments at the start, saying someone had been “pushing an agenda” to make all of these changes, making a 1.5 inch-thick book’s worth of changes before abruptly leaving. He said one of the changes was not merely the “housekeeping” change it had been made out to be, and worried about unintended consequences. Agreeing that there was a lot of information to absorb in a short time, Councilors Gardner and Julsrud sought to explain the changes found in the most complex of the ordinances. The new language created more public meetings, and insisted that developers hold one for all residents within 350 feet, note the number of attendees, and respond to any concerns they might raise. It also allowed for more flexibility and freedom to issue special and interim use permits. This particular ordinance drew a ‘no’ vote from Councilor Fosle and passed 8-1; the other two passed unanimously. Its work complete, the Council wrapped up a relatively short meeting.

***

The most interesting theme to emerge in this meeting was the chicken-or-egg question relating to the Seaway and its place in Lincoln Park. Is the area around the Seaway in need of a facelift because of the effects of the Seaway, or is the Seaway an issue because its environs are the issue? Presumably the two are interrelated to some degree, but where is the best starting point for people trying to attack the problem? With the caveat that I don’t spend much time in Lincoln Park, I’ll say this: going after the blighted building at the heart of the neighborhood is probably more cost-effective than trying to make everything look pretty or cracking down on crime or shutting down bars. (Where there’s a demand, the supply will follow, in one way or another, and some of those other solutions can seem paternalistic, depending on how they’re implemented.) For the same reasons, though, it’s hard to see the changes to one building turning around an entire neighborhood.  This is, of course, why poverty is so entrenched; there are no simple causal arrows, and things cycle into one another through culture and politics and economics and the agency of individuals. The Seaway rescue is an attempt to throw a wrench in some of those cycles. We’ll soon learn if it is enough of one to create newer, healthier cycles for a neighborhood that could use some help.

Loose Ends and Old Debates: Duluth City Council Notes, 2/24/14

After two weeks of drama following its last regular meeting, the Duluth City Council had a tame night on Monday. The agenda was short, the crowd was light, and Councilor Sipress was happily settled into his new seat on the far end of the dais. The meeting opened with some mundane announcements, as President Krug plugged the State of the City address this coming Monday (6 PM, Spirit Mountain Chalet), and there were mentions of snow removal and the need to fill vacancies on the Human Rights Committee.

After the speakers (all repeat appearances) and the passage of the consent agenda, the Council moved on to a resolution of intent to amend the city charter in order to address Council vacancies. The resolution had no specifics, and simply established the four Councilors (Gardner, Hanson, Julsrud, Larson) who will take the lead on the effort to work with the charter commission. Councilor Russ had some issues with the vague language, but Councilor Gardner reassured her that there will be plenty of time to explore all options; she also suggested that, if feasible, any elections in off years should be held concurrent to state and national elections in November. Councilor Gardner reminded her colleagues that they needed nine votes to amend the charter, and invited everyone to bring forward ideas, while Councilor Filipovich urged caution and patience. Councilor Larson asked for a Committee of the Whole meeting on the process before the proposal is finalized, and Councilor Sipress reiterated the emphasis on the non-binding nature of the proposal. It passed 9-0, which Councilor Gardner called a “good start.”

Next up was a resolution for the purchase of a hydro-excavator, which is a machine that uses hot water to clear dirt around natural gas pipes without risking damage to the pipes. Councilor Fosle had pulled it because he figured the new Councilors hadn’t heard his spiel on vehicle purchases yet; as he has several times during his time on the Council, he cited his 30 years as a mechanic in declaring the repair costs of machines far too high, though he also added some cautious optimism about a new plan by the administration to review these costs. Councilors Julsrud and Filipovich talked up the job done by the city’s Public Works Department, while Councilor Gardner explained that all the depth of the frost this winter is part of the reason behind the number of breaks this year. President Krug asked CAO Montgomery for an update on Councilor Fosle’s request for a more thorough inventory, and was told that a fleet consulting firm will do an assessment on the city. An exchange between Councilor Russ and CAO Montgomery had CAO Montgomery explaining the criteria the city uses when deciding whether to repair a vehicle or purchase a new one. The resolution ultimately passed 8-1, with Councilor Fosle providing the dissent.

The Council moved on to a resolution applying for a grant for the cross-city bike trail; as Councilor Larson explained, they had not received a grant they’d applied for last fall, which would have funded the trail through the lower parts of Enger Park. Councilor Fosle, maintaining his stance against trail funding, was the lone ‘no’ vote there. Two ordinances selling city property passed unanimously, as did a pair of permits for the new Duluth Transit Authority center on Michigan Street, though Councilor Hanson abstained from those two votes due to his business relationship with the DTA. The permits created a ramp and a skywalk, Councilor Gardner explained, and were unanimously approved by the Planning Commission.

Councilor Russ celebrated Duluth’s snow removal when compared to Minneapolis in the closing remarks, but most of that period was devoted to discussion of the Lakewalk extension plan that was on the table two meetings ago. CAO Montgomery explained that engineers were working on plans for both the paved Lakewalk along Water Street and a path along the lakefront, behind the Ledges and Beacon Pointe developments, as requested by the Council. Councilor Gardner shared her suspicions that the plan they produced would be cost-prohibitive, but figured the city would hammer out a more sensible plan in time. Councilor Hanson then had a lengthy back-and-forth with CAO Montgomery as he sorted out the details; he asked if there was a funding source, and was told that there was one in place, but the funds had been diverted during a budget crunch in 2007 and 2008, and restoring that funding would mean taking money from something else. There were also questions about some fencing in that area that may be on city property, though CAO Montgomery couldn’t provide a definitive answer on that front, and promised further updates in time.

It wasn’t a terribly exciting night, but the Council did take a much-needed first step toward cleaning up the process for filling Council vacancies, and tonight’s resolution laid the groundwork for a lot of debate in coming weeks. It was also good to see the Lakewalk issue revisited in a substantive way. After a brief departure, Duluth is back to Don Ness’s favorite type of government—boring government—and while I don’t always endorse that, it was a blessed relief this time around.

Sipress Retains Seat

The Duluth City Council held a special meeting Thursday night to review the confused appointment of Joel Sipress to the 2nd District City Council seat. (See my notes on the meeting here, and my questions after the meeting here.) President Krug opened the meeting with a lengthy monologue, saying she had “never seen something quite as unseemly as this past week,” both in her time on the Council and during her work with University of Minnesota-Duluth faculty union.

After this opening, President Krug was at pains to insist she did not have any conflicts of interest in the vote, as some rumors had suggested since the initial meeting. (Kathy Heltzer is married to Krug’s spouse’s aunt.) She said that sort of tie was no different from the professional relationships several of the Councilors enjoyed with other candidates for the open seat, and said that, since the marriages were relatively recent—both couples in question are gay, and thus were not legally recognized as married until this past year—she hadn’t even thought of things in that way.

This explanation complete, President Krug then said that she called the meeting because the Council “did not follow established rules” and “filled the vacancy on a tie; integrity demanded a revisit. She went on to explain that the city charter does not allow for a special election, and that while Councilor Gardner will push a change to the charter at the next meeting, it “cannot be done in time.” She finished by suggesting that keeping the result would “silence” the voices of four members of the Council, and moved to reconsider the resolution appointing Sipress.

A tense pause followed before Councilor Julsrud moved the motion, and after a longer pause, Councilor Larson seconded it “for the sake of conversation.”

Councilor Fosle began the conversation by disagreeing with President Krug’s premises. He said that the Council should respect the initial ruling of Clerk Cox and Attorney Johnson, and that there were alternative ways to count votes via ranked choice voting. Echoing a point I made in my last post, he noted that Sipress had taken the oath, and asked Atty. Johnson if they could really unseat a Councilor in this manner. Atty. Johnson replied that they indeed could.

Councilor Julsrud then repeated many of President Krug’s points. She took care to explain her vote had nothing to do with Sipress, but was instead a “matter of justice” and wondered if half of the council was “comfortable with silencing the other half.” She also decried how political the whole process was behind the scenes, and said she had received “arm-twisting phone calls” by people trying to influence her vote.

Councilor Larson offered somewhat more tentative support for re-opening the vote, while Councilor Filipovich, after detailing his lengthy consultations with local politicians and citizens, came out against revisiting the resolution. “Why overturn a unanimous vote?” he asked, referring to the resolution to approve Sipress once he had been declared the winner via RCV, and listed several other challenges he would rather move on to face.

With no more comments, President Krug moved the reconsideration to a roll-call vote. The four Councilors who had supported Sipress (Filipovich, Fosle, Gardner, Hanson) voted against reconsideration, while the four who had supported Heltzer (Julsrud, Krug, Larson, Russ) voted for it; Councilor Sipress, for obvious reasons, abstained. The move to reconsider thus failed to achieve the necessary five-vote majority, and Councilor Sipress will retain his seat.

***

The even margin confirms my concern heading into this meeting: nobody had budged, and it is very easy to construe the motives on both sides as being political. I don’t fault President Krug for at least raising the question; this was an instance in which the Council was damned if it did and damned if it didn’t. Still, the result was predictable, and we can only hope that grudges don’t linger.

If I may repeat an earlier criticism, I’m still bothered by the complete lack of comment by the Councilors over their initial votes. Some said the candidates were all lovely, but never went any further. On a certain level, this is true; both Sipress and Heltzer are well-qualified, and there are few, if any, ideological differences between them (or between them and the rest of the Councilors, save Councilor Fosle). But reading between the lines, it was pretty clear there were large gaps between the Sipress camp and the Heltzer camp, and that each group was hardened into their voting bloc. No one ever explained why, which leaves the rest of us guessing or relying on rumors. This makes everything seem rather catty; a case of Minnesota Nice at its worst. There’s a fine balance to be found here, of course; we don’t want open warfare on the Council either. But there is plenty of room for tactful comments that might help lessen the claims of politics somewhat. If there were deeper divisions here than were obvious, the public deserves at least some knowledge of them.

With some reservations, I can accept the results of the meeting. This conclusion is more a practical one than anything; I don’t see how any effort to open it back up again would bring about any sort of resolution. Four Councilors were not going to budge from their support for Sipress even if the Council had re-opened debate, and dragging this out any longer only would have opened up further opportunities for ugliness. It’s a crude tiebreaking method, and I agree that some of the arguments for moving on are a bit thin, but I do worry about the precedent of removing a Councilor appointed via resolution by reconsideration of said resolution. For good or ill, the Council sealed its fate when no one objected to the initial interpretation of RCV, and once they’d seated Sipress, going back to remove him would have only compounded the issue. It was important to acknowledge the error, but sometimes one has to cut one’s losses rather than carry on with an obviously flawed process in the desperate hope that things might somehow work out.

At any rate, Councilor Sipress is now safely ensconced in the Council, and can go about his work. It’s time for Duluth to get to know him; ultimately, it will be up to his constituents to judge him. It is time to move forward, beginning with the much-needed push to amend the city charter to allow for a special election in future circumstances such as this one.

Questions on the Duluth’s 2nd District City Council Appointment

The Duluth City Council’s 2nd District vacancy drama took another twist on Wednesday night. It turns out that, according to FairVote Minnesota, the Council erred when it declared Joel Sipress the winner of the vote to fill the seat. The News-Tribune has the details here. I have a bunch of questions.

Joel Sipress took an oath of office. Isn’t that a binding action?

This is a procedural question, but it’s worth asking. Sipress said the right thing in the News Tribune article, and said he’d let the other eight Councilors decide his fate. But now that he’s actually part of the Council, can they legally do that? Without consulting the Charter, I would think that he’d need to resign his post for that to move forward. If this isn’t the case, that is a weird loophole: conceivably, the Council could revisit the appointment of a Councilor at any time, and on a whim. This isn’t like a decision to revisit some random resolution; it’s about a man who is, rightly or wrongly, a member of their Council now, and that leads into my next question.

Might not “revisiting the matter” only politicize it?

The two Councilors quoted in the DNT, it is worth noting, did not support Sipress. I trust their motives, and I would think most people would agree there was something deeply flawed with what happened on Monday. Still, if some of the Sipress supporters don’t think the matter should be revisited, it would be very easy for both sides to claim the other side is playing politics, rightly or wrongly. While it only takes a simple majority to revisit the issue, I would argue the Council needs at least 7 votes in favor of revisiting the appointment to legitimize the process. If there is concerted opposition to revisiting the matter, it will only make an ugly process look uglier.

If the Council revisits the appointment, how does it avoid ending up with the exact same deadlock?

In the DNT piece, Councilor Julsrud said the Council should vote anew on its three finalists. Does anyone actually think that anyone will change their mind? Won’t we just end up in the exact same place we were on Monday night? Unless they all know that one of their number has had a change of heart, I don’t see this ending well at all.

The alternative that might—possibly—break the deadlock would be to start the process anew and take applications and conduct interviews again. Even that would carry the threat of a similar outcome, though.

How quickly can the Council change the City Charter to allow for a special election?

If we’ve learned anything from the past few months, it’s this: the Council’s attempts to appoint replacement Councilors have been unqualified disasters. An otherwise thoroughly competent and professional Council has been made to look silly twice. No amount of fine-tuning the process will fix this. The problem isn’t with the process. It’s with the very premise. Eight people should not be deciding who represents a district of over 15,000. The people of District 2 need to elect their own Councilors.

The obvious long-term solution here—as several Councilors readily acknowledged on Monday night—is a change to the City Charter to allow for a special election. They need to make it happen, and as quickly as possible. If they are worried about making a post hoc change, Councilor Sipress could conceivably remain on the Council (while ideally abstaining from everything) before resigning once the changes have been made. That would require his cooperation, but I think it’s the most sensible way forward.

What is FairVote Minnesota’s role here, and where’s the accountability?

This is a bit of an aside, but it should be mentioned: the statement from Jeanne Massey of FairVote Minnesota in the News Tribune claims that “the Duluth City Council deviated from the prescribed process” for ranked choice (IRV) elections. The Council arrived at its process, however, after consultation with people at FairVote Minnesota. This would seem to suggest that someone at FairVote Minnesota erred, and the organization should probably own that mistake.

FairVote Minnesota also claims it is “not attached to the outcome” of the vote. If this is the case, why were the City Clerk and the City Attorney calling them? The city needs to figure out what its relationship with this organization is, and should obviously not be relying on them for legal opinions if the organization does not purport to offer them.

That’s enough for now. I welcome comments, replies, and further questions…we need to sort out this mess as quickly as possible.

The Delights of Instant Runoff Voting, Plus Minimum Wage Debate: Duluth City Council Notes, 2/10/14

The Duluth City Council kicked off its business two hours early on Monday night, as it sought to fill the 2nd District seat vacated by Patrick Boyle, now of the St. Louis County Board. The Council had narrowed a field of ten applicants down to three, and brought those three before them for a second interview. Councilor Gardner, the chair of the Personnel Committee, oversaw the proceedings.

The three finalists were Ms. Kathy Heltzer, Ms. Angie Miller, and Mr. Joel Sipress. The results from the first round suggested it would be a tight race, with three first-place votes for Ms. Heltzer and Mr. Sipress, plus one for Ms. Miller, who is probably the best-known of the group; she recently completed a four-month interim term on the County Board in the stead of her late husband, Steve O’Neil. All three appeared reliably liberal, which—worries about Council uniformity aside—seemed in keeping with the intentions of the voters of District 2, who had re-elected the unopposed liberal Councilor Boyle last November.

The process was messy from the start, as the Councilors invited the three candidates up to the table to take a few questions. Four Councilors asked questions relating to the role of councilors, dealing with land use disputes, availability to constituents, and the most pressing issue facing the city (along with a solution). Instead of asking the candidates the same questions at once and rotating the person to first take the questions, they asked each individual all four questions in succession. Predictably, the first candidate to answer, Ms. Miller, was somewhat vague and stumbled through the questions, while Mr. Sipress, who went last, had plenty of time to think up precise answers and build off of what the first two had said. He was exacting and meticulous, citing the city charter in his responses on Councilor roles, and did not dither with multiple issues facing the city as the other two did. Still, it wasn’t hard to see the appeal in Ms. Heltzer, who also had very clear and sensible answers, and all three appeared thoroughly competent and had fairly similar answers. It appeared the vote would come down to the two who hadn’t supported Sipress or Heltzer in the first round, Councilors Fosle and Julsrud.

Without bothering to explain their choices, the Councilors went into the voting. The City Clerk, Mr. Cox claimed the form was “a little zealous” with its many columns for votes, but in the end, the form was rather sensible. The first vote failed to achieve a 5-vote majority, with 4 votes for Sipress (Filipovich, Fosle, Gardner, Hanson), 3 for Heltzer (Krug, Larson, Russ), and 1 for Miller (Julsrud). And so there was a second round, in which Councilor Julsrud switched her vote to Heltzer, leaving the Council deadlocked.

The Council then proceeded through two more rounds of voting, but no one blinked. It was a tedious process, with the Councilors finding humorous ways to fill the time as Mr. Cox tabulated the votes. Councilor Hanson told a bad joke, while President Krug plugged a few press conferences she’d attended; the Olympics got a mention, as did the anniversary of the Beatles appearing on the Ed Sullivan show, which had Councilor Russ reminiscing on the time she went to see them in Milwaukee in 1964, when she was 14. (She couldn’t hear a thing.) Councilor Garnder had everyone running for cover when she threatened to give a history of the councilor appointment process.

With no decision in four rounds of simple majority vote, the Council moved to an instant runoff vote (IRV; also known as ranked-choice voting, or RCV). This is a process in which voters rank candidates in accordance to their preference; the lowest vote-getter is eliminated, and people who voted for that person have their votes transferred to their second choice, and so on until the process produces a winner with the majority. The immediate question is why the Council didn’t just use IRV to begin with; the first round would have produced the same result as a majority vote, and would have spared us several rounds of electoral games of chicken. Moreover, now that the Councilors had been through four rounds of voting and knew where everyone else stood, they predictably voted strategically, as everyone who ranked all three put their top choice at #1, Ms. Miller at #2, and the other contender tied for first at #3. Once again, Sipress and Heltzer each had 4 votes. Of course, this could have happened had they done IRV at the start of the process (as I think would have been more logical–why use it only as a backup?), but there’s at least a chance that the second-place votes might have been a bit less strategic and more reflective of the actual order in each person’s mind. (Forgive my cynicism, but I doubt that every single one of them thought Miller should have been #2.)

But wait! There was more confusion. Despite Mr. Cox’s insistence that everyone should rank all three, not everyone did: Councilors Fosle, Hanson, and Julsrud only ranked their top choice, and left the rest of their ballots blank. This meant that Sipress had three third-place votes, while Heltzer only had two. There was some confusion over whether this apparent technicality really could swing the vote, so Mr. Cox and Attorney Johnson retreated to a back office and called an IRV expert at Fair Vote Minnesota for a ruling. (This is where I slip in my obnoxiously pompous comment to say that there was someone in the room who learned the details of IRV as a political science undergrad and knew what the correct interpretation was, but I suppose I’m not exactly qualified to issue a ruling on this sort of thing.)

At this point, President Krug suspended the special meeting so that the poor men from the steam plant, patiently waiting in back, could come forward for their Committee of the Whole report. The Council plowed straight on into the regular meeting, and was halfway through the citizen speakers when Mr. Cox finally emerged with a verdict: Mr. Sipress’s extra third-place vote was enough to get him the last spot on the Council. (Under standard IRV this is not correct…see the follow-up posts for more.) He took his oath and assumed Councilor Boyle’s empty seat.

Despite the bizarre tiebreaker, no one protested much; everyone just seemed relieved to arrive at a resolution. Councilor Hanson was all for violating the charter and having a special election to fill the seat; Councilor Gardner told him they couldn’t do that, and worried it might come to a coin toss at one point. This idea repulsed President Krug, though there was consensus that, after two straight messy Council appointments, a change to the city charter appears necessary. In a case such as this one, with nearly two full years until the next Council election, a special election seems by far the most sensible choice; as frustrating as it may be to constituents, in short-term cases such as the one this past fall, it may make more sense just to leave seats vacant. This is one case in which the stakes are high enough that no process at all may be better than a bad process. At any rate, this process did—stumblingly, haltingly—deliver the candidate I considered most qualified, based on the brief interview I saw.

***

The meeting itself breezed by. Among the citizen speakers, Ms. Alison Clark was back to again demand the construction of the Lakewalk around Beacon Pointe, while a man told a long story of bureaucratic red tape surrounding his fire-damaged home, which Councilor Gardner and CAO Montgomery offered to look into, if only to find some resolution. Former Councilor Boyle came forward to reflect a bit on his four-plus years on the Council, talked about how far the city had come since 2009, and offered continued support from his new position across the way in the St. Louis County Building.

The only issue on the agenda to generate any debate at all was a resolution supporting a statewide push to raise the minimum wage. There were single speakers for and against the resolution, and Councilor Gardner mustered a reply to the critic of the measure. She cited polls suggesting 70 percent support for an increase and explained that giving poor people money was a sure way to get the money back into the economy, as they’d spend it on fairly basic needs. She noted that wages have been stagnant despite increased productivity over the past thirty years, and said the measure was important despite its symbolic nature, as it started a conversation and showed the Council’s priorities. Most of the rest of the Council, flexing its liberal muscles, repeated her points, with a few additions: Councilor Larson explained that the proposal would index the minimum wage to inflation so as to prevent drastic shifts, and Councilor Sipress suggested that higher a minimum wage would help taxpayers, as it would lessen stress on government safety nets.

As expected, Councilor Fosle was the lone dissenter; he proudly claimed the conservative mantel and worried that the measure would backfire, and have an especially heavy effect on people on fixed income who might not be getting more money relative to inflation. Councilor Gardner countered this claim, saying people on fixed income have seen more adjustments for inflation over the past 30 years than people working minimum wage jobs. After President Krug’s endorsement of the resolution as a judicious use of symbolic resolutions, it passed, 8-1. The Council wrapped up its business with a few minor ordinances that passed unanimously, and everyone welcomed Councilor Sipress to the fold. He will, hopefully, be the last Duluth City Councilor appointed by his peers, and not chosen by voters.

Lurching Toward a Lakewalk: Duluth City Council Notes, 1/27/14

While much of the city shut down in the bitter cold, the beat went on in the Council Chamber this week. The crowd was fairly sparse but spirited—the clerk deputized me to close the doors on people chattering in the hall at one point—and there was also an empty seat at one end of the dais, as Councilor Boyle had tendered his resignation following his victory in the special election for a seat on the County Board. Boyle was suffering from a case of the flu and thus unable to say a proper goodbye, though President Krug said she’d invite him to do so at a later date.

In the opening comments, Councilor Gardner talked of her resolution to streamline the process to find his appointment, a necessary step following last fall’s botched effort to fill the seat of outgoing Councilor Garry Krause. She established a timeline: the deadline for applications is this Friday (Jan. 31) at 4:30; there will be interviews of February 6; Councilors will choose three finalists by February 7; the Council will interview them on the 10th; and they will then vote on the Councilor at a special meeting that same day. She also informed the public that no one has applied for the spot yet, so if you live in Congdon, around the UMD campus, or in Kenwood, your odds might be pretty good if you’re interested.

The consent agenda passed unanimously. The next three votes, all involving smallish sums of money for such items as the Sister Cities program and the Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Rail Alliance, and an office design, passed without debate. Councilor Fosle opposed all three, and Councilor Julsrud joined him on the rail alliance. Councilor Gardner’s process to fill the vacant 2nd District seat passed unanimously after a few minor procedural questions, and a move to bestow landmark status on the Chester Park United Methodist Church, planned for reuse as a dance studio, passed unanimously.

Next up was the main event of the evening, a resolution authorizing a grant application for the completion of the Lakewalk between 21st and 23rd Aves. East. (This is the stretch between the parking lot at the east end of the Lakewalk and its resumption at the corner of 23rd and Water St., in front of the Beacon Pointe development.) The measure, pushed by the administration, would create a Lakewalk on the north side of Water Street opposite Beacon Pointe. There were four citizen speakers, two for and two against. The supporters were with the Friends of the Lakewalk organization, and cited safety concerns with heavy trail-use traffic on Water St. and a survey of their twenty members that indicated widespread support. The two opponents reminded Councilors that the plan for the cross-city trail had insisted upon a trail along the lakefront, not a street separated from the lake by a row of condos, and suspected a bait-and-switch. They recommended the tabling of the measure.

CAO Montgomery opened the discussion by saying that tabling would effectively kill the bill, as the city would miss the grant application deadline. This was enough to sway Councilor Julsrud toward support, and she said the city could always reject the grant if it later decided it didn’t like the plan. Councilor Gardner, on the other hand, was not at all swayed. She was especially worried by the Second District vacancy on the Council; as this part of the Lakewalk goes that district, residents’ voices were perhaps unheard. Councilor Russ agreed, saying “something went terribly wrong” in the process; she complained of the developers’ apparent encroachment on the lakefront, the lack of quality signage, and said the new proposal was “really just widening the sidewalk,” and would do nothing to keep bicyclists off the road. Councilor Filipovich echoed these general sentiments and added that there would be more opportunities to ask for money later; CAO Montgomery said the city couldn’t rely on future federal grants, while Councilor Gardner said there certainly would be future opportunities.

Councilor Larson and President Krug, on the other hand, expressed support. They thought any safety-improving measure was commendable and cited the Lakeside neighborhood Lakewalk as an example of a successful path away from the lakeshore. Councilor Gardner, after pausing to stare down the whispering Councilors Hanson and Julsrud, reiterated many of her critiques, called the whole process “very disturbing,” and questioned the current composition of the Friends of the Lakewalk. Councilor Fosle, meanwhile, shared some history with the rest of the Council, digging up resolutions from 2007 and 2008 establishing the initial intent to both widen the Water St. sidewalk and build a trail along the lakefront. Councilor Filipovich worried about a possible loss of political will for the lakefront trail if the Council were to pass only the sidewalk portion. “There’s a lot of despair already,” Councilor Gardner agreed, and both she and Councilor Filipovich wondered why the administration was pushing this during the week of the deadline.

As it became clear the Council did not have the votes to pass the measure, the reason behind the whisperings of Councilors Julsrud and Hanson came out, as they introduced an amendment to reassert the intent behind the original 2007 and 2008 resolutions. There was then a very long stretch of confused but ultimately productive wrangling, as the Councilors offered different wordings for the amendment and even toyed with waiting until a later date to clarify their intent so as to not be too “sloppy,” in the words of Councilor Larson. Councilor Gardner expressed qualified support for the amendment, and they finally settled on three points, as laid out by Councilor Hanson: a reaffirmation of the 2007 and 2008 resolutions, a public meeting to discuss the plan, and a commitment to “concurrently” find solutions to the situation. “We’re finally going to vote on something!” President Krug celebrated, and the amendment passed, 7-1, with Councilor Fosle in opposition.

After that the Council moved to consider the resolution proper, and Councilor Fosle explained his opposition: these sorts of promises are easily forgotten—the 07 and 08 resolutions would have been, had he himself not gone and dug them up earlier that day—and may come to nothing. He was also the lone vote against the resolution, which passed, 7-1.

The rest of the agenda passed relatively quickly. Councilor Fosle was the lone vote against a change in street and sidewalk obstruction fees, and was joined by Councilor Julsrud in a protest vote against Armory culvert repair (see here for the original details on this debate). Councilor Fosle amended a resolution that accepted a grant for emerald ash borer testing in Duluth trees to clean up its misleading language, and also celebrated the timing of a water utility improvement project; both passed unanimously. Councilor Gardner got a good laugh with her shock at the fact that the city was paying for the added costs of the harsh winter with excess revenue (“We have excess revenue?!”), and Councilor Hanson was pleased to hear these measures would have no appreciable impact on the general fund. Finally, the Council pushed back the months for its sprinkling credit to May through September, with Councilor Russ laughing that the city may as well start the credit in June, what with the weather Duluth has had lately.

It was an efficient night for the Council outside of the Lakewalk debate, and even there, they got things done after some spirited debate. There were powerful criticisms, a decent defense, and, ultimately, a sensible compromise. Even Councilor Fosle, who was having none of the whole affair, deserves praise for dispassionately providing information for everyone else, and reiterating the worry about political will. The Councilors who opposed the resolution as initially written must keep up the pressure to make sure the lakefront path isn’t lost in the shuffle, but if they do, there is a good chance the initial vision for the Lakewalk will still come to fruition. As Councilor Hanson said, they need to roll up their sleeves and get to work.

Homeless Rights, Duluth in the NYT, and a Lot of Fighting Over a Shed: Duluth City Council Notes, 1/13/14

A packed house was on hand for the first Duluth City Council meeting of the 2014 session, and Councilors Zack Filipovich and Barb Russ took their seats for the first time. The Council kicked off by electing its new officers, and as Councilor Krug was the only one up for President, she was elected unanimously. The two candidates for Vice President gave brief and rather pointless speeches on their qualifications, with Councilor Fosle saying he had seniority and could run things as well as anyone else, and Councilor Larson listing off a heap of committees and such on which she has served. The Councilor voted 8-1 in favor of Councilor Larson, leaving Councilor Fosle laughing wryly.

Councilor Boyle then recapped several of the Board’s accomplishments in 2013 before swapping seats with his successor. President Krug slowly got into the groove of reading through the various things she is required to read and opening and closing two public hearings. (There have been at least ten public hearings since I started doing this, and there has never been a public speaker at one of them.)

The first big issue of the night was a resolution recognizing a petition asking the city to establish a bill of rights for homeless persons. There were four citizen speakers, including three people who had once been homeless and the executive director of CHUM in Duluth, Ms. Lee Stuart. They spoke to the struggles of homelessness and thanked the many organizations that got behind their effort, asking them to stand as they read the names. (Most of the people in the room stood.) Ms. Stuart explained that, even though most of the points on the bill of rights were already included in law and Duluth has tended to treat its homeless people fairly well, this was a call for deeper conversation and would focus attention on big issues.

The Councilors then took turns expressing their support for the bill of rights. Councilor Gardner echoed many of Ms. Stuart’s words and talked about the importance of organization for a constituency that often believes they have been left behind. Councilor Hanson expressed optimism about turning a corner, while Councilor Filipovich explained how the whole community benefits economically when people have roofs over their heads. Councilors Russ and Boyle emphasized related issues, such as the housing stock of the city, health care, and living wage jobs. The resolution passed unanimously, much to the delight of the crowd, and the Human Rights Commission will now set about making Duluth the first city in the country to have a bill of rights for homeless persons.

There was a mild flare-up over a point of order at this point, as Councilor Fosle asked President Krug if she intended to allow clapping and cheering in the Council Chamber when past Presidents had not. President Krug said she was in control of the room and cut off Councilor Fosle when he tried to respond, saying this would best be dealt with after the meeting. Councilor Hanson abstained from a vote on a contract to an oil company that advertises on his blog, but the rest of the consent agenda passed unanimously.

The resolution on the city’s intended bonding measures passed 8-1, with Councilor Fosle in opposition, and Councilor Filipovich was named to fill the outgoing Councilor Stauber’s seat on the Public Utilities Commission. Councilor Gardner then asked for an amendment to a resolution allocating federal community development grant money, shifting some from a housing program to a 3-year job education program for single mothers. Interim County Commissioner Angie Miller came forward to tout the job training program and emphasize its strong support network. Councilors Julsrud and Filipovich expressed their support, but Councilor Fosle got some good indignation out of the rest of the Council when he said that moving money out of the housing program would “throw three families out in the cold.” Councilors Gardner and Russ rushed to explain that this was not the case, and that there were other funding sources. President Krug, on the other hand, upheld her commitment to processes and said she didn’t think the Council should upend its vetting process for single projects. The amendment passed 6-2, and the whole resolution passed 7-1, with Councilor Fosle as the lone ‘no’ vote. (Councilor Larson recused herself from the vote due to her consulting work with some of the organizations involved.)

In one of those paradoxes of local politics, the most contentious issue of the night was an incredibly minor one. A Piedmont couple came before the Council to appeal a Planning Commission decision to deny them a variance that would have allowed them to build a storage shed on their property closer to a stream than is normally allowed by DNR standards. A neighbor came forward to speak against the variance. He complained about the size of the shed (at 12 by 20, it was practically a garage), and dismissed claims that the stream had dried up. He said he had long lobbied to keep houses away from the wetlands around the stream, and said the house had flooded during the June 2012 deluge. The couple countered this last claim, saying it was sewer-related and not caused by the stream, and thanked the city for paying for a sump pump that had resolved their flooding problems.

Councilor Julsrud spoke in support of the couple, saying there was no way this little creek that dried up in summer (of which there are many in Duluth) was actually a trout stream, and that the environmental expert on the Planning Commission had approved of the variance. Councilor Fosle had other ideas, rightly pointing out that the resolution needed to explain the hardship faced by the couple. Councilor Gardner furnished him with one, saying it was a practical difficulty for the couple; everyone else in the neighborhood could build such a shed if they so desired, but they could not. Councilor Fosle found this wanting, saying the couple should have known what they had when they bought the property, and said that the DNR’s standards existed for good reasons. The trout came up again, and Councilors Boyle and Fosle went back and forth on the quality of the couple’s runoff abatement efforts, with Councilor Fosle telling Boyle to “remember this” so that the neighbor could call him when all the runoff ends up in his yard. Councilor Larson came out against the variance, as did President Krug, who once again defended the process and worried about slippery slopes.

Councilor Fosle then decided to make the meeting even more exciting by saying that “everyone should follow rules no matter their affiliation to other people who have been elected,” thus implying that the change was a political favor for the couple, who apparently are related to a local politician. (I have no idea who this is.) Councilor Gardner lashed back, saying “I don’t normally like to respond to the things you say because I don’t want to draw attention to them,” but that she had no choice but to defend herself from a charge of association with someone who was not at all in her political circle. Councilor Hanson took “deep offense” at the charge, said he did not want to spend the next four years “being chastised” by Councilor Fosle, and added that “integrity is everything in my life.” (I here resist the very strong urge to make a comment about his hockey journalism. Onward.) Councilor Fosle sniffed that he hadn’t attacked anyone personally, and asked Councilor Hanson if he’d bothered to talk to the complaining neighbor, who did live in his district.

Councilor Gardner explained that the Council had the authority to overrule the Planning Commission, saying they were not restrained by the procedural dictates it must follow. Councilor Filipovich said the runoff prevention methods had been vetted by city staff, and Councilor Larson did what she could to celebrate everyone having different opinions and told the couple “enjoy your shed!” even though she was voting against it, since she saw how the votes would go. The variance passed, 6-3, with Councilors Fosle, Larson, and Krug in opposition.

The Council unanimously approved its priorities for state legislature lobbying this session, which include restoration projects of the NorShor Theater and Wade Stadium and a river water usage plant for Spirit Mountain. In the closing comments, Councilor Julsrud shared good news about new efficiencies in parking enforcement, Councilor Fosle and President Krug came to a vague resolution of their earlier spat about applause in the Council Chamber, and Councilor Larson tried to get everyone to schedule their summer recess.

***

Lastly, if you are a Duluthian who lives under a rock/has the good sense not to waste much of your time on social media and missed it, Duluth was on the front page of the New York Times on Monday. (And it wasn’t one of those articles that appear every year in which the national media covers winter weather in Duluth in shock and fright, while all of the interviewed Duluthians shrug and say “meh.”) The article plays off the tried-and-true journalism trope of taking two similar places (Duluth and Superior, Wisconsin) and showing how divergent state politics affects people on both sides of the St. Louis River. I don’t think there’s anything terribly insightful here for anyone with a basic knowledge of general political tendencies. (Breaking news: business owners prefer low taxes! Gay people want to live in states where their marriages have legal standing! Democrats like unions more than Republicans!) It also makes only passing mention of local politics and the particularities of the two cities, which I would have given more weight if I’d been asked to do this sort of piece. Sure, these cities could make interesting test cases—but for all of the cultural similarities, there are also large differences that would make a side-by-side comparison difficult. But it does an effective job of showing some of the effects of the different paths Minnesota and Wisconsin have followed over the past couple of election cycles, and there are some fun little shoutouts that locals will recognize. It will be interesting to chart any changes in economic and personal well-being indicators between the two states, though reality will inevitably be more nuanced than the partisans on either side will ever admit. If they further develop this series and do some follow-ups, it could wind up being a good study.

Meet Your 2014-2015 Duluth City Council

Time to get back to work. With the first Council meeting of the new year a week away, here’s a preview of the nine men and women who will be legislating the city of Duluth for the next two years.

Jennifer Julsrud

1st District; Lakeside, Woodland, Hunters Park, Mt. Royal area

1st term (elected 2011)

-Julsrud, who was narrowly elected in 2011, is fairly liberal, though that comes with some caveats. She also watches the bottom line, demands results, and is not afraid to ask tough questions. This leads her to vote against the majority more often than many of the other left-leaning Councilors, though usually for unique reasons, speaking of her own experience and demanding precision in processes. Is not in the running for Council leadership in 2014, but that makes her a very likely candidate for 2015.

Patrick Boyle

2nd District; Congdon Park, UMD campus, Kenwood

2nd term (elected 2009)

-Boyle served as Council President for the past year, a position he filed ably, though he never faced any serious issues. As such, he didn’t talk nearly as much as his colleagues, and was one of the more reliable liberal votes. His second term may be a very short one, as he is running in the January 14 special election for the St. Louis County Board.

Sharla Gardner

3rd District; Downtown, the various Hillsides, Endion, Park Point

2nd term (elected 2007)

-The queen bee of the Council, Gardner is a tireless community activist who will always explain her decisions (and explain them, and explain them some more, and…). She is a self-described “flaming liberal,” though she is happy to cross the aisle and work with other Councilors when she finds common ground, and will, as usual, explain her thought process. She will also break from the Administration to make occasional principled stands. While generally warm and encouraging, she can be formidable when crossed.

Howie Hanson

4th District; Lincoln Park, Piedmont, Duluth Heights

1st term (elected 2013; seated immediately to fill vacant seat)

-Unlike the other two new members, Hanson already has a couple of meetings under his belt. His instincts appear very pragmatic and consensus-driven so far, though this sometimes leads him to collide with existing processes. It’s hard to know if he’ll continue with this streak, or if he’s just still learning how to do business as a Councilor. It’s far too early to make any sort of judgment on him.

Jay Fosle

5th District; everything west of 39th Ave. W

2nd term (elected 2007)

-Fosle is the Council’s lone conservative, and quite the character. He will actively subvert the city administration when he disagrees with it, and has no qualms about quarreling (on more-or-less respectful terms) with his colleagues. Tends to speak in stream-of-consciousness, which can be head-scratching as he floats seemingly random proposals and questions, but it also leads him to come up with the occasional insight that no one else had considered. From heroin addicts to ATV riders, he also champions causes that the rest of the Council sometimes doesn’t see. Seems to have good days and bad days when it comes to the precision of his critiques. Put his name in the hat for Council Vice President, though given his lack of allies, I doubt he’ll receive it.

Linda Krug

At-large; 1st term (elected 2011)

-Like Julsrud, Krug is a left-leaning Councilor who will ask tough questions and occasionally break from the majority. She is not one to waste words, and is a strong defender of existing processes. She is the sole candidate for the Council presidency, and has also declared her interest in seeking the seat in the Minnesota state legislature being vacated by the retiring Rep. Tom Huntley.

Emily Larson

At-large; 1st term (elected 2011)

-The persistently warm and upbeat Larson is not one to go out on a limb and take daring stands, and instead looks to hear all voices, play the peacemaker, and lighten the mood when necessary. She’s been a tireless worker as the Council’s liaison to parks and libraries. Is reliably liberal, and likely to be elected Council Vice President.

Zack Filipovich

At large; 1st term (elected 2013)

-Filipovich, a recent UMD graduate, is set to become the youngest ever member of the Council. He was endorsed by the DFL, though his campaign was fairly vague and upbeat. What isn’t in dispute so far is his work ethic. An impressive campaign operation led him to big wins on the west side of the city, and he made up a substantial gap in support between the primary and the general election. He has been a regular at Council meetings for months, and sometimes he and I are the only people left in the audience at the end.

Barb Russ

At large; first term (elected 2013)

-Russ was a favorite to win a seat heading into the election season, and had the support of most of the Duluth liberal establishment. It was a bit of a surprise to see her finish behind Filipovich in the general election, but she still won easily over the third-place finisher. A retired lawyer and longtime community activist, Russ appears likely to hit the ground running as a Councilor, though we don’t yet know which particular causes she’ll champion.

Also of note:

David Montgomery

City Chief Administrative Officer

-Gives a weekly update from the city administration, and explains its stance on issues before the Council. Spars with Councilor Fosle with some regularity, but otherwise seems to enjoy a positive relationship with the Councilors.

Gunnar Johnson

City Attorney

-Johnson is on hand at all Council meetings to clarify city charter questions and council procedure issues. Frustrated the Council with his handling of the 4th District vacancy this past year, but the Councilors otherwise tend to respect his interpretations. Is sometimes subjected to leading questions from Councilors looking to reinforce their arguments.

As six Councilors have two years or less of experience, it’s a fairly green Council, and as I’ve discussed at some length before, it features one of the largest left-leaning majorities the city has ever seen. That’s good news for Mayor Don Ness and his administration, though it’s hard to know what the new year will bring, and what fractures might appear as the Council looks to repair Duluth’s streets, attract more living-wage employers, expand the housing stock, and deal with any number of possible surprises. The first meeting of the year will take place on Monday, January 6. As always, I’ll have updates.

One Last Time in 2013, and Farewell to the Outgoing Councilors: Duluth City Council Notes, 12/26/13

The Duluth City Council met for the final time in 2013 on Monday night, wrapping up its business in front of an average-sized crowd on a snowy December day. The meeting opened with a public hearing on liquor license fees, but Councilor Fosle was the only person to speak, and he only had one brief line saying they were going up too much; an update on the search for a director of Visit Duluth was similarly not very exciting. There were two general citizen speakers, both on issues that came before the Council at the last meeting; a Rice Lake Township resident made his distrust for the city very clear, and a west side business owner urged the Council not to allow ATV usage in the city.

After passing the consent agenda, the Council moved into five finance measures related to bonding, licensing and fines, and a plan to create a system-wide bikeway plan. Councilor Larson amended the licensing and fines resolution to exempt food trucks from the inflation-tied rate hike, as that permit system had only just gone into effect. There was no discussion save some congratulations on the bike plan and some brief grumbles about spending by Councilor Fosle. All of the resolutions passed with at least seven votes, though Councilor Fosle voted against all of them, and Councilor Stauber joined him on three of the five.

After that, it was on to personnel issues, and three of the four changes were again supported by everyone but Councilor Fosle. He complained about the creation of new positions and the spending of money, leading CAO Montgomery to offer rejoinders on each of them, noting that most did not hire new people but simply re-shuffled and re-defined existing positions. Councilor Fosle conceded most of these points, but voted against them all anyway.

There was significant dispute, however, on the Council’s appointment of a new member to the Civil Service Board. Councilor Gardner, the chair of the Personnel Committee, gave a lengthy endorsement of Ms. Beth Tamminen, whose broad scope and vision impressed her, and filled the niche left by the outgoing committee member. Councilors Larson, Krug, and Julsrud, however, in turn endorsed Mr. Eric Forsman, citing his persistence (this was his third attempt to join), his recruiting skills, and his experience with people from diverse economic backgrounds. Everyone hurried to say that both applicants were very good, and Councilors Hartman and Boyle said they were inclined to follow Councilor Gardner’s recommendations. Councilor Fosle came out of left field to ask if all the applicants were Duluth residents. (They are.) The amendment supporting Ms. Tamminen passed, 5-4, with Councilor Fosle joining Larson, Krug, and Julsrud in dissent.

Next up was an attempt to clarify a variance previously given to a developer seeking to build a duplex on the 3100 block of Minnesota Avenue on Park Point, a discussion that brought out eight speakers. Three were with the development group, and they all emphasized their credentials, talked of their many successful past developments, residency on Park Point, and the refusal of their opponents to compromise. The other five speakers, on the other hand, accused the developers of misinformation, a bait-and-switch change in plans, and inadequate search for community input. Two offered up maps, displayed to the Council Chamber on TVs, showing the differences between the original plan and the subsequent changes. They worried about the size of the project and its environmental impact as well, and their last speaker said she knew and respected the developers, but thought they had more work to do.

The upset citizens soon found they faced an uphill battle. Councilor Gardner, who represents Park Point, said this was the only variance she’s ever supported as a Councilor, and was proud to support it again, citing the recommendations of the planning office. Councilor Krug had opposed the initial variance, and in a rather refreshing concession, said she could have said “I told you so,” but chose not to, as the Council had already made its will clear. She thought the Council had a duty to uphold that commitment. Councilor Larson expressed her regret about the confusion, but also announced her support. Councilor Hanson bemoaned the inability of the two sides to get together and find a compromise, and suggested tabling the measure; Councilor Gardner shot him down, saying that would be “destructive” to the project, which is currently under a stop work order. In the end, the Council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

The Council moved on to a claim settlement with a bicyclist who’d had an accident involving a misplaced manhole cover, which Councilor Fosle had pulled from the consent agenda. His intent, he explained, was not to vote against it, but simply to show that people got hurt in all sorts of odd ways all of the time, and that worries about ATV injuries were thus misplaced. After that, it was another round of finance measures setting tax rates and the budget for 2014. There was no discussion at all, and Councilor Fosle voted against everything, while Councilor Stauber joined him on two of the five ordinances. Everyone else supported all five, and they all passed. Duluthians should have already received mailings explaining the new tax rates for 2014.

The Council wrapped up with two zoning ordinances and one amending the city code on handicapped parking; all three passed unanimously, freeing Councilor Stauber to “recommend approval” for the final time on the Council. “It warms my heart,” said President Boyle upon hearing his catchphrase for the last time.

Councilor Hanson, eager to have the Council revisit the ATV issue from last week, jumped the gun and tried to bring it forward again while the Council was still on the handicapped spaces. When he finally got his opportunity, he explained that he wasn’t really comfortable with his vote last week. He thought the ATV plan was well-intended, but thought the Council had ceded its responsibility over the matter by passing it off to Parks and Rec, and said he’d heard from many residents in his district who wanted trails in their part of town. President Boyle tried to clarify his intent, but before long Councilor Stauber jumped in with a point of order, saying the Council needed to vote to re-open discussion. It promptly voted not to reopen discussion, 5-4, thus ending the matter. Councilors Hanson, Hartman, Julsrud, and Boyle provided the four votes in favor of re-opening the issue. Councilors Hanson and Fosle went back and forth some about ATV possibilities in the closing comments, leading President Boyle to suggest they meet up and hash this out some other time.

There were also a few more words about the Rice Lake Township annexation talk, which the city had dropped. It involved a lot of repetition of last week’s points. Councilor Fosle said he wished the city spent half the time trying to create jobs that it did trying to annex people, prompting a figure-filled response from CAO Montgomery over jobs created in recent years. While Councilor Fosle’s grandstanding on the issue was a rather curious act by a public representative of a city, I will agree with him on one thing: if the Duluth really wants to grow to 90,000 people in the coming years, annexing townships seems like, well, cheating. It may be a practical idea for other reasons, but when I first heard the 90,000 figure, I thought it was an admirable goal that should inspire the city to develop in certain ways, not serve as an excuse to re-draw lines. But the issue is now dead for the time being, and the Council wrapped up with lighter matters.

***

With this meeting, we bid a fond farewell to two Councilors, Dan Hartman and Jim Stauber. Many councilors paused to say kind words about both of them, with Councilor Gardner citing Hartman’s growth and Stauber’s exemplary ability to disagree without being disagreeable. Councilor Larson gave them both gag gifts: a monster-sized coffee mug for Hartman, a proponent of Coffee with the Council at Louie’s Café (there’s one more session this Friday at 8 AM!), and a bookmark for Stauber that said “recommend approval.”

In many ways, they couldn’t be more different. Hartman served one term, was the youngest member of the Council, and was always upbeat, reliably liberal, and led the charge on any number of initiatives. Stauber served three terms (roughly “forty years,” as Hartman joked), was one of the oldest Councilors, and was a conservative who chose his battles and told many cautionary tales of good intentions gone awry. From what I saw, both seemed to genuinely enjoy their work, and got along agreeably with their colleagues. While staunch in their views, both were willing to take other opinions into account, and took the occasional surprise stance.

Both men were (and are) true politicians, too. They knew how to ask good questions, were precise in their messaging, and were willing to fight back when challenged. Hartman had an uncommon enthusiasm for the minutiae of local government, and when he broke from the majority, it was usually to uphold commitments to processes and defend established ways of doing business, even if those ways weren’t always the most logical. Stauber likewise prioritized decorum, though he was sometimes willing to bend established practices when he saw a course he believed to be more practical. On their own, both were effective Councilors with distinct voices; in tandem, they were an excellent pair, each possessing strengths that counteracted the weaknesses of the other.

They may both be leaving the Council, but I doubt either of them will go away; Hartman is still young and enough of a junkie that he’ll remain active in local politics in some capacity, while Stauber is running in the special election for the St. Louis County Board in January. One of the newly elected Councilors, Zack Filipovich, fills a similar demographic to Hartman; we’ll see if he or someone else can match Hartman’s energy on the Council. Stauber’s departure, on the other hand, leaves the Council devoid of any traditional conservatives. (Councilor Fosle is a fiscal conservative, but often a militant one, and he has some other quirks that make him hard to pin down as precisely as Stauber or former Councilor Garry Krause.)

To get a better handle on the nine Councilors slated to serve for the next two years, I’ll give a rundown on all of them sometime between Christmas and the first meeting of the 2014 session in early January.

Also, I’m going to miss a public meeting for the first time since I started going to them in June, and will not be at the School Board meeting tomorrow night. I’ll be keeping up on what happens, though, and will probably have some sort of note later in the week, which will at the very least offer some comments on the outgoing Board members. For now, though, I’ll settle for recommending the approval of this blog post.