Tag Archives: duluth city council

A Bad Night for E-Cigarettes, Bond Debt Resolutions, and Brevity: Duluth City Council Notes, 9/9/13

First off, it’s primary election day…if you’re a Duluth resident and you haven’t voted yet, you have until 8:00. Get out and vote! I’ll have some comments on the results either later tonight or tomorrow afternoon.

A substantial crowd was on hand on a rather disgusting, drizzly Duluth night on Monday, and the Council tried to put its best side forward, with all its gentlemen donning more formal wear than usual (save Councilor Fosle, who wore his regular black polo shirt uniform). Many of the issues introduced or unresolved at the last meeting were back on the agenda, leading to a very long night (and, thus, a very long blog post summary). Councilor Krause opened the meeting by announcing he would not retire until after the next meeting, a change that caused a lot of confusion later on as the Council tried to figure out a timeline to appoint a replacement.

After hearing from a speaker on the proposed Canal Park revitalization who also had some issues with street lights, the Council cleaned up the confusing road salt issue from the previous meeting, with Ms. Linda Ross Sellner again scrutinizing the funding practices and noting environmental damages caused by salt. Councilor Fosle concurred with her worries and hoped that more sand would be used in the future, and with her concern noted, the resolution passed, 9-0, as did the consent agenda.

President Boyle then moved the issue with the largest public interest to the top of the agenda, and no fewer than thirteen speakers came forward to address three ordinances that amended the City Code to regulate the sale and use of electronic cigarettes. Most of the speakers were in support of the regulations, and the anti-smoking crowd was well-organized and had solid public speakers. Several doctors, healthcare professionals, and members of the American Cancer Society came forward to decry e-cigarettes, expressing their worries about health, secondhand smoke, normalization of smoking around children, and the utility of e-cigs as a smoking cessation device. Three speakers countered them, however; one ranted about bad government regulating things excessively, one asked the Council to put things off until further evidence emerged, and Mr. Brian Annis—a leading advocate who aims to open an e-cig business—returned to cite several studies countering those mentioned by the opposition.

The first of the three amendments would also prove the most contentious, as it sought to eliminate a loophole in the Minnesota Clean Air Act that allows sampling of products in businesses. (The measure would also ban such establishments as hookah bars.) Councilor Krause, in search of a compromise, suggested an amendment with a very strict standard: only businesses with more than 80% of their sales on these products—basically, smoke shops—could allow sampling. This, he argued, would allow people to test the product before purchase, keep businesses in the city, and would not adversely affect children, as they are not allowed in such shops anyway.

However, it quickly became clear Councilor Krause’s amendment would face an uphill battle, as one of his potential supporters, Councilor Fosle, announced his refusal to endorse any attempt to regulate e-cigs at all. He accused the Council of a lack of faith in the state government (which is not as stringent in its restrictions) and made expert use of a red herring by saying the council should be more worried about children trying heroin and ecstasy instead of cigarettes. Councilor Gardner, on the other hand, did break away from the Council’s more liberal voting bloc and announced her support for the Krause amendment. Councilors Krug, Julsrud, and Larson said they would rather hold the line on the Clean Air Act, while President Boyle said he couldn’t support anything that marketed itself in a “cherry bubble gum cotton candy” flavor. The Krause amendment failed, 6-3, with Councilors Krause, Gardner, and Stauber in support of it.

With his amendment gone, Councilor Krause explained why he couldn’t support the ban on sampling. He emphasized property rights, saying private businesses should be able to ban e-cigs as they choose, but nothing more. He also made the point—on which all parties agreed—that existing research was inconclusive on the health effects, and that in the meantime, it made little sense to regulate something that might help people quit. Councilor Gardner agreed, and both pointed out the countless carcinogens and toxic substances we ingest in small quantities every day. Councilor Gardner (a former smoker herself) added that adults are allowed to enjoy silly flavors as well, and that they can make smokers feel less dirty about smoking as they try to quit. Councilors Larson and Julsrud shared a rather different theory of government, and insisted that the Council had an obligation to learn from past manipulations of marketers of tobacco-like products, and that e-cigs should be banned until proven healthy. The Council voted to close the sampling loophole, 6-3, with Councilors Fosle, Gardner, and Krause in opposition. Mr. Annis left the Chamber in defeat, and a loud noise could be heard from the hallway.

It was at this time that Councilor Gardner took the floor to deliver the most compelling speech I’ve seen since I began attending Council meetings. She conceded defeat, admitting that all of the e-cig restrictions “will pass, and you’ll all be happy,” but took issue with the tactics used by the anti-smoking lobby. The reliance on shame as a bludgeon, she insisted, did more harm than good to everyone involved. She noted that many smokers are poor and low-income people (often without health insurance) who are “humiliated” by anti-smoking campaigns, and claimed these are “polarizing” and “not a good way to change behavior.” She recalled her own adolescent self, and how she’d been attracted to things that were so stigmatized by the supposed do-gooders in the establishment, and wondered what would happen if the anti-smoking groups dropped their expensive shaming campaigns and instead focused their message on cessation devices. “Top-down changing ordinances are not the answer,” she said, saying they were reminiscent of the failed temperance movement. “If we’re a compassionate community, we need to think about this,” she concluded, adding that she felt better now that she’d finished her lecture. Her speech visibly affected several members of the Council and the audience, and one can only hope her words will not be forgotten.

Debate then went forward on the ban on e-cigs in public places, and Councilor Hartman was careful to note that this is not a ban on the product altogether, but merely an effort to regulate them like cigarettes, lest they become a “gateway;” Councilor Krug made similar point about the “slippery slope” of making exceptions to smoking restrictions. Councilor Krause called the measure ineffective, calling it a “band-aid” that could never rectify the “group, family, and cultural dynamics” that push people to take up smoking. Councilor Gardner largely agreed, but figured something was better than nothing, and voted for this measure; it passed, 7-2, with Councilors Krause and Fosle in opposition. The final resolution, a measure that treated the sale of e-cigs like regular cigarettes, passed 8-1, with Councilor Fosle being the lonely “no” vote. Councilor Stauber thanked Councilor Gardner for her comments and admitted that this was a “government intrusion,” and while he does not normally support them, he thought that this one was the right thing to do.

After nearly two hours on e-cigarettes, the Council then settled its tax measures for the coming year in the matter of minutes. The right-leaning bloc of Councilors Krause, Fosle, and Stauber raised a few objections, but Councilor Hartman was quick to point out the slight tax decrease, and most of the measures passed along the predictable 6-3 line. (Councilor Fosle also opposed park and bus funding measures that passed 8-1).

Next, the Council revisited the debate over servicing bond debt on street improvement (see last meeting’s notes for details).  Councilor Hartman had fine-tuned the language of the previous measure, this time making it clear that any funds from the casino settlement would be used to replenish the Community Investment Trust (CIT) fund, but the three conservatives once again refused to draw down the CIT any further. This time around Councilor Krause had his own counter-proposal, though his attempt at a compromise on the issue found even less traction than his stance on e-cigarette sampling, as it failed to attract any liberal votes or impress his two conservative colleagues. Sensing an impasse, Councilor Gardner tried to table the measures, but was voted down 5-4; forced to take a side, she continued her tour de force, demanding to know from CAO Montgomery just how much street repair interest on the CIT could fund. The answer was “less than a mile,” and Councilor Gardner rested her case, saying a gamble on the city’s credit rating was not worth less than a mile of road.

Councilor Julsrud was even more direct in her attacks on those defending the CIT, and lashed out at Councilor Krause for “playing politics” with the issue, a reference to things that must have been going on behind closed doors. Councilor Krause defended himself, again complained about the “betrayal” of the Administration that had said it would hold the line, and said he didn’t know how much CIT money the Council might need for streets in the future. Councilor Fosle griped that CAO Montgomery had claimed to be “open to proposals” but had shot them all down, and repeated his line of the night, which accused the city of excessive spending on “fancy, frilly stuff.” Twice during the meeting, Councilor Hartman effectively called his bluff: while Councilor Fosle claims to have a host of money-saving measures in mind to cut out the fancy frills, why haven’t they come before the Council? Still, both measures failed, leaving the debt service issue unresolved.

After the tedious debate over how to go about replacing Councilor Krause (in which Councilor Gardner again had an excellent line by agreeing that Krause’s replacement “shouldn’t be a flaming liberal like myself,” and instead agree with Krause on most issues, and Councilor Stauber did a lot of worrying over subverting the interests of the voters of District Four), Councilor Stauber tried to get the Council to veto an increase in natural gas rates. In a lengthy discourse, he complained that an outside firm had called for a lower rate than the Public Utilities Commission had supported, and that a newfound utilities surplus made the rate increase pointless. Councilor Julsrud commended Councilor Stauber for being “masterful at spinning things,” while Councilor Gardner called him “penny-wise and pound-foolish,” saying the increase amounted to roughly $1.05. Councilor Fosle had his usual complaints, Councilor Hartman had a rejoinder, and Councilor Julsrud said the rate increase would help build a reserve that would help to deal with “ever-changing capital needs.” Councilor Krug said the Council should listen to its commissions unless there is an “egregious” error in their work, while Councilor Krause countered that these taxing authorities often operate in vacuums and didn’t have a good sense of the big picture of city tax rates. The veto attempt failed, 6-3, with Councilors Stauber, Krause, and Fosle in support.

Exhausted, the Council did its best to hurry through most of its remaining business, though Councilor Fosle held up a few issues for comment, and was the lone ‘no’ vote against some legal fees (which Councilor Stauber said had been a “bad decision” but supported anyway). The longest debate was over a reconstruction design for Superior Street; Councilors Fosle and Krause worried about the lack of a funding mechanism, but Councilor Stauber said he was satisfied that the money was there, and Councilor Gardner expressed incredulity that anyone would hold up this project. The measure passed, 7-2. The rest of the agenda passed unanimously, Councilor Larson wished CAO Montgomery a happy birthday, and the Councilors and the four remaining audience members (including myself and two current Council candidates) were relieved to finally exit the chamber, three hours and fifty minutes after the start of the meeting.

Duluth City Council Elections 2013: A Patient Primary Primer

With primary elections on Tuesday, here’s part two in my Duluth election series. See the notes on the School Board here.

For my coverage of City Council meetings over the past few months, click here.

Figure out where to vote, and which races you’re voting for, here | Map

This is what your ballot will look like. 

The Duluth City Council is in a different universe from the School Board. There are no hugely contentious issues before it, and the current edition appears to have a pretty good rapport. There is no rush to throw the bums out here, though we do have two open at-large seats, following the retirements of Councilors Jim Stauber and Dan Hartman. The entire primary will only eliminate one candidate.

At-Large

Five people are competing for four spots in the general election. Once again, I list candidates in my rough order of preference.

Zack Filipovich, a recent University of Minnesota-Duluth graduate, appears to have one of the better-organized campaigns out there. He’s been endorsed by the DFL, but his campaign also focuses on his experience in finance and economic development, which leads one to hope he’ll mind the checkbook better than some other well-intentioned but not-overly-financially-savvy left-leaning Duluthians. Councilor Hartman’s retirement also leaves the Council with a relative lack of young people, and Filipovich fills that niche. That’s an important thing to have, especially in a city that makes a big deal out of attracting and retaining young people. His platform (website here) could use more specifics, but in a field where no one really blows me away, he’s at the top of the ballot for now.

Barb Russ is probably the most experienced candidate in the field, and probably has the strongest campaign going, with a concise but clear agenda and lawn signs everywhere. Just as Rosie Loeffler-Kemp’s résumé just about screams “school board member,” Russ’s bellows “city councilor.” She is a very safe and predictable choice, and while she may not be wildly inspirational, she should be an effective Councilor. Website here

Ryan Stauber is the son of outgoing Councilor Jim Stauber, and his emphasis on “balance” suggests his views are fairly similar to his father’s. Like Filipovich, he’s young, and has likewise demonstrated a clear commitment to his city. Given the need for some balance and debate, I was very tempted to put Stauber in one of the top two slots. With the retirement of his father and Councilor Krause, two of the three more-or-less fiscally “conservative” voices on the Council will be gone, and I worry that simply supporting the two DFL-endorsed candidates may contribute to City Council groupthink. Victories by Filipovich and Russ would effectively marginalize the opposition on the Council, and leave it in the sole hands of Councilor Jay Fosle—and, given Councilor Fosle’s tendency to be a bit haphazard in his criticisms, I’m not sure that role suits him. Duluth’s recent experience with a lonely voice standing up to the rest of a board (coughArtJohnstoncough) has not been pretty.

Still, I need more than “balance” as a reason to support someone, and Stauber hasn’t quite inspired me. His main point of emphasis, city infrastructure, is also Russ’s, and other than a vague mention of stronger law enforcement (which is part of his background), there isn’t much here. If he goes through to the general election, I’ll certainly give him a second look. Unsolicited web site advice: putting childhood awards and volunteer experiences (ie. some governor’s award won in middle school, marathon volunteering) on your résumé just makes it look like you’re padding it. There is potential here, but the product isn’t quite polished enough yet.

A fourth candidate, Ray “Skip” Sandman, emphasizes his Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) roots on his website, and aims to bring diversity to the Council. Considering the recent controversy over an eagle staff and lack of racial minorities on the Council, this is all well and good; the problem is, I don’t see a whole lot of meat on the bones here. Other than a vague mention of living wage jobs, he doesn’t say what else he’ll do. Tell us more, Ray! Website here

The final candidate is Ray Whitledge, whose use of the Statue of Liberty on his campaign signs underlines his staunch libertarian views. His Facebook page (I couldn’t find a website) straight-up says he thinks taxation is robbery. To his credit, he sounds like he really practices what he preaches, and will only accept tiny amounts of voluntarily-donated pay if he serves on the Council. However, 99% of his proposals probably won’t fly, leaving him in that dreaded “lonely voice” category I worried about in my comment on Councilor Fosle above. His emphasis on ideology over community leads me to doubt he’ll be able to work with his fellow Councilors in a constructive way. I’m somewhat intrigued to see what a town governed by libertarians would look like, but I don’t want Duluth to be the guinea pig—nor is it realistic to expect that here, given Duluth’s deep left-leaning roots. This city is what it is, and the best of the candidates here accept that, even if they disagree on everything else.

District 2

Councilor Patrick Boyle is running unopposed, so there’s no intrigue here…yet, at least. Boyle has thrown his name in for the special election to replace late County Commissioner Steve O’Neil, and should he win that race in February, he will need a replacement. Stay tuned.

District 4

With Garry Krause’s surprise retirement this week, Howie Hanson is now running unopposed in this race. I had plenty to say about Mr. Hanson on Friday. Even for people somewhat more sympathetic to Mr. Hanson than I am, it is unfortunate he will not face a challenger who might at least force him to come up with some sort of platform. Instead, he will likely coast into the Council with his false charm and vague interest in the community on full blast. District 4 residents, if you have any ambition to enter local politics, now would be a great time for a write-in campaign.

The lack of competition in Districts 2 and 4 is, frankly, a bit disappointing. I suppose it might be a sign that people are fairly happy with the work the Council is doing—an understandable stance, given its relative efficiency and lack of drama of late—but a little debate here wouldn’t have hurt. It is what it is, though, and there are some diverse voices in the at-large race. Unfortunately, in my estimation, the candidates who venture away from the establishment are also the weaker candidates. I think there’s a lot to say about that, but I’ll hold off until after the primary, when we’ll have a better pulse on what the voters of Duluth are thinking.

Exit Garry Krause; Enter Howie Hanson

Forgive me, followers from afar:  with primary elections this Tuesday, this blog is going to be pretty much nonstop local politics for the next few days. But if you like reading about nutty local wannabe-politicians, this post should amuse you anyway. I’d intended to start this series tomorrow, but a surprise announcement has me rushing to get this post up early.

Garry Krause, a member of the Duluth City Council, has announced that a new job will leave him unable to continue on in his position. He will attend his final Council meeting this coming Monday. The city will have to decide whether it will fill Krause’s Fourth District seat until next January, when the winner of this fall’s race for his seat–which is now a one-man race–will take office.

I didn’t always agree with Councilor Krause, but when it came to professionalism on the City Council, he was second to none. As I wrote a couple of months ago, he manages to blend principled stands with decency and civility. He was a dedicated public servant, and brought a necessary voice of skepticism to the Council without ever being overbearing or self-righteous in his critiques. I would have gladly endorsed him for a second term, and the city will miss him. I wish him well in his new position, and I definitely respect his decision to prioritize his family over his political career.

That said, I can’t pretend I’m not somewhat bitter over his departure from the race at this point, which leaves local blogger Howie Hanson unopposed in his pursuit of the Fourth District seat.

For the most part, Howie’s blog just plugs community events, and I appreciate people who put in that sort of community service. However, facile mentions of local events do not qualify one to wrangle with esoteric ordinances and resolutions. He doesn’t have a campaign website yet (and probably won’t need one, now that he has no opponent), so it’s hard to evaluate what other qualifications he may have other than being interested in things.

Admittedly, I also have a bit of a history with Howie: he tried to be a high school hockey analyst for a little while, and quickly made himself the laughingstock of the local hockey community. That may seem petty and irrelevant to his potential work on the City Council, but the character he displayed was not what I want out of a Councilor: he pretended to be objective when he had obvious loyalties, he took it upon himself to call out the “arrogance” of certain teams without any evidence, hyped up some players to absurd levels, and when people called him out or noted his numerous errors, he quickly deleted things and pretended he’d never written them. He was sloppy, held grudges, and did not take criticism well at all. I’ve disagreed with any number of hockey commentators on any number of issues over the years, but with the vast majority of them, I’m able to get over that and have a friendly relationship; Howie, on the other hand, was quite incapable of participating in a dialogue like that. That doesn’t inspire much trust.

Howie, who can be found wandering the Heritage Center wearing swag that advertises his blog, also once got the School District to pay him $19,000 a few years back so that he could do things that anyone with a basic knowledge of computers could do–allegedly for 30 hours a week! (Why not have kids do it?) Needless to say, his “goduluthschools.com” website was a total flop, and typing that address into your browser now gets you a thrilling series of posts on HGH and penis enlargement. I don’t think he’s a bad or dangerous person; I will just be surprised if he proves a competent city councilor.

I suppose there’s some chance that someone will mount a write-in campaign now that Councilor Krause is out of the picture, but even if that happens, we’re likely stuck with Howie. It’ll be an “interesting” four years on the Duluth City Council.

****

Over the next two days I’ll have posts on the primary races for Duluth School Board and City Council. Stay tuned.

Hooray for Being Boring: Duluth City Council Notes, 8/26/13

It was an oppressively hot and humid Monday night in Duluth, with several of the audience members huddled up against the windows in search of cold air, and an impressive lightning show flickering away over the darkened harbor. But neither heat nor storms could deter the Duluth City Council from tireless debate over servicing street debt, and after draping themselves over the drinking fountain to prepare themselves, President Boyle brought down his gavel and sent the Councilors off on their marathon.

As usual, community speakers led off the meeting, and there were only two signed up, though one brought his “little elves” with him. Mr. Jeff Mass of the Duluth Children’s Museum was joined at the podium by middle-schoolers Garrett and Jenna, who told the Council about their studies of outer space, which will culminate in a ten-minute radio chat with the astronauts in the International Space Station next week. (Exact time and date TBD; their pretty flyer tells us to check the Children’s Museum website for updates.) The only other speaker, Linda Ross Sellner, wanted a clarification on some road salt purchases, which led the Council to pull the resolution from the consent agenda so that an apparent typo in the agenda could be corrected.

After that it was on to the main event of the evening, the discussion of a resolution that would service $2.23 million in street improvement bond debt via money from the Community Investment Trust (CIT). As CAO Montgomery and Councilor Gardner explained, the city had 3 options to service the debt:

1. Take the money from the general reserve fund, which might jeopardize the city’s credit rating;

2. Raise the tax levy, effectively doubling street-assessed taxes in the city;

3. Take the money from the CIT, which would prevent a tax increase and be less of a threat to the credit rating.

CAO Montgomery thus suggested that Option 3, while not ideal, was the best choice on the table; Councilors Gardner, Julsrud, Hartman, Larson, and Krug all voiced their agreement in similar terms. Taking money from the CIT, however, requires a 7-2 supermajority, and with Councilors Fosle and Stauber raising serious doubts, it became clear that Councilor Krause would be the deciding vote.

Councilor Krause admitted to being “torn” on the issue. His reservations, which were repeated by Councilors Fosle and Stauber, revolved around the city’s frequent forays into the CIT despite claims that it wouldn’t take any more money from it. He was “surprised” and “frustrated” that this had come before the Council just a year after being told the city would find a long-term fix. CAO Montgomery countered that the city’s new, pay-as-you-go street funding plan would, eventually, take this issue off the table. Councilor Stauber replied by saying that the city is still has serious unfunded debts (mostly in pensions) and is also spending money on things such as trails; even if they aren’t accruing more street debts, their approach is not totally “pay-as-you-go,” and debt will continue to be an issue.

Councilor Krug said that all of the “woulda, shoulda, coulda” out of the Councilors griping about past funding issues was “useless,” while Councilor Larson asked what realistic alternative they might propose. Councilor Fosle, more on-target than last meeting in his critiques, went back to his favorite hobbyhorse and proposed savings in vehicle maintenance; Councilor Stauber said he’d proposed a street bill that had been shunted aside, but CAO Montgomery argued parts of his proposal “would not apply.” He also disagreed with Councilor Stauber’s suggestion that the general fund had been built up by taking money from the CIT; while technically true, the funds had arrived there in a round-about way. Councilor Fosle wrapped up the hour-long discussion by saying he thought the mayor’s office, and not the Council, should be working on the street plan to resolve the issue for good.

In the end, Councilor Krause decided to vote ‘no,’ and the measure failed, with only six votes in favor. President Boyle asked CAO Montgomery what came next, and he responded by saying Administration would likely push to take the money from the general reserve fund at the next board meeting. The city does have a potential white knight in this whole affair, however: at some time in the next month, a federal court will rule on ongoing litigation between the city and the Fon Du Luth Casino, and should the city win, the $12 million settlement will easily cover the debt. While CAO Montgomery made it clear they cannot count on a positive result, the entire council was likely left hoping for a swift ruling from the courts.

Next up was the authorization of bonds to pay for the Lakewalk expansion, and Councilors Fosle, Stauber, and Krause once again held the line on further spending. Councilor Fosle grumbled about wants versus needs, while Councilor Julsrud reminded the Council that over half the project was being paid for in grant money. A simple 6-3 majority passed the ordinance, and a related second ordinance was tabled.

Several resolutions were then read for the first time, and though there was no voting on the issue, there were two speakers on a trio of proposals amending the city code on the matter of electronic cigarettes. Mr. Brian Annis, a longtime smoker who had weaned himself off tobacco by using e-cigs, told of his failed past attempts to quit, and how his conversion had inspired other smokers to switch over to the healthier alternative. He’d clearly done his research, and the Councilors were swift to invite him to an agenda session, as they had not had any defenders of e-cigs at the Committee of the Whole meeting earlier that day. Ms. Jill Doberstein of the American Lung Association countered his claims by saying electronic cigarettes “normalize” smoking, and that their use is often recreational instead of being a means of quitting. She demanded consistency from the Council in its regulation of smoking products.

The Council concluded its formal business by passing two more ordinances without debate: an amendment of city fine fees (opposed only by Councilor Krause), and a zoning change (approved unanimously). In the closing comments, Councilor Larson reminded the city of Food Truck Fridays at the public library, while Councilor Krause asked someone to look into the heavy attire facilities maintenance workers are forced to wear even in the worst summer heat. Councilor Stauber asked if a biennial actuarial study of unfunded liabilities was under way, which it was, and Councilor Hartman took a moment to thank his colleagues for the policy-driven debate about the CIT fund, even though he was unhappy with the result. He admitted it was probably “very boring for the general public,” but he had an excellent point: instead of endless “theatrics,” the Council really had gone to the heart of the issue, and in government, the boring debates often are the most productive. While the nuttiness of a Duluth School Board meeting may be more interesting to those of us trying to endure 90-degree meeting chambers, the Council continues to quietly inspire confidence, and in such a climate, the minority view may even have a better chance to win out—as Councilors Stauber, Krause, and Fosle showed tonight. Whatever one thinks of their vote, that is an encouraging thought.

Councilor Fosle Takes a Stand: Duluth City Council Notes, 8/12/13

After a month-long recess, the Duluth City Council re-convened on Monday night in front of an unusually small crowd in the council chamber. There wasn’t a single citizen speaker, and the agenda was on the light side, but the Council still found plenty to wrangle about.

The meeting opened with city Chief Administrative Officer David Montgomery giving the council two updates. The first regarded repairs planned for the perennially out-of-service Minnesota Slip Bridge, a pedestrian walkway that has become such a financial drain that Mayor Ness recently proposed getting rid of the thing altogether as part of a larger redevelopment of the waterfront area. CAO Montgomery then gave several updates on FEMA funding for damage from the 2012 flood; over half of the funds have now been approved, though some were rejected, a small sum is going through an appeals process, and a large chunk—some $15 million in stream restoration—is still pending approval. Satisfied, the Council proceeded to approve the consent agenda unanimously, and CAO Montgomery asked them to return a resolution on street improvement to Administration.

Next up was a resolution for the purchase of three street maintenance trucks, and Councilor Fosle, who was in a combative mood all night long, voiced his displeasure. “Maybe if I keep saying this, someone will listen,” he said, griping that he had been a mechanic for thirty years and that the maintenance costs and supposed wear-and-tear on the existing city vehicles were out of hand. He figured the city either “asked for lemon vehicles” or that the Facilities Department is “trying to make money for itself.”

Council Stauber said he “appreciated Councilor Fosle’s expertise,” and also announced he would not support the measure. CAO Montgomery said the city had run comparisons to other shops and found the repair rates comparable; Councilor Krause pressed him on these numbers, but appeared to be satisfied by the response. Councilors Gardner, Hartman, and Krug expressed support and emphasized how well-informed they were, with Krug detailing her visit to the garage last year to inspect the city fleet. Councilor Fosle, while unconvinced, did agree with the other Councilors over the need to address the billing system. The resolution passed, 7-2, with Councilors Fosle and Stauber in opposition.

The next two topics of debate both involved the issuance of temporary liquor licenses to local establishments. The first was for the recently reopened Hacienda del Sol restaurant, which owes the city over $33,000 in back taxes and utility bills; Councilor Julsrud, while professing her love for Hacienda, noted that “that’s a lot of burritos,” and asked CAO Montgomery about its financial stability. CAO Montgomery lacked exact numbers but said the restaurant had been meeting deadlines for some time, and he also reassured Councilor Krause that a “tenacious” new employee was on hand to flag potentially troublesome businesses and ensure this wouldn’t happen again. Councilor Gardner pointed out that a liquor license would make it easier for Hacienda to pay back its tab, and Councilor Julsrud recommended further short extensions of the license so as to hold the restaurant accountable. The measure passed, 9-0.

The second license concerned the Flame Nightclub, which was seeking to expand its operation, though its owner had admitted to Council President Boyle that recent troubles with crime around the establishment would likely force the delay in the expansion. The police had compared the crime numbers at the Flame to other local bars at a meeting during the previous week, but Councilors Gardner, Hartman, and Julsrud did not think it was a particularly good comparison, as the Flame is a fairly unique establishment. Given the confusion, Councilors Krause and Larson said they hoped the resolution would be tabled, but Counsel advised the Council to go ahead and vote. Much grumbling and confusion followed; Councilors Gardner and Hartman suggested they approve the license anyway and give the Flame a test run to see if it had cleaned up its act, while Councilors Krug, Larson, and Krause thought it best to respect the unanimous ruling of an advisory council against the permit until the situation improved, which they were confident it would. Counsel assured Councilor Fosle that it would be easy for the Flame to re-apply, and the Councilors then voted down the license 7-2, with the votes in support coming from Councilors Gardner and Hartman.

The last contentious issue on the agenda involved a resolution supporting an assessment of the main Duluth Public Library facility. Councilor Larson led the charge, noting heavy usage and major inefficiencies in the 33-year-old building, and CAO Montgomery said the existing building is at a “tipping point” due to its serious energy inefficiencies and the evolution in library usage over the years. Councilor Krause asked where the money would come from; while CAO Montgomery’s answer was vague, Councilor Larson assured him funds had already been allocated from the 2011 Capital Fund.

Councilor Fosle was not a fan of the resolution. He noted that there are many buildings older than this one—a charge that Councilor Hartman called “unfair to say out loud” given the differences among the buildings in question—and wondered why the Council should be thinking about replacing a functional building when community centers across the city were still closed. He went on to rail against how the Council was “spending more money every time we turn around,” raising taxes and fees; “this kind of funding has to stop,” he insisted.

Several people in the room responded to his outburst. Councilor Julsrud said that the library is, effectively, a community center, and CAO Montgomery was at pains to counter Councilor Fosle’s portrayal of the city’s tax record. Councilor Gardner said the community centers and the library were not under the same umbrella; this led Councilor to Fosle to ask whether a referendum passed in the 2011 election covered both parks and libraries. CAO Montgomery answered that it only provided money for parks; his response, while technically correct, failed to note that the general fund savings from the referendum’s passage were explicitly allocated for the library. (Full disclosure: I am currently employed in a temporary position by the Duluth Public Library.) He also explained to Councilor Fosle that there was no good way to tell how many library users were Duluth residents.

Councilor Krause, in an effort to hold the middle ground, acknowledged Councilor Fosle’s worries about the community centers, and noted that their usage, when trails and youth sports are taken into account, could easily exceed that of the library. However, given that the funding for the assessment had already been budgeted, he announced his support for the resolution. It passed, 8-1, leaving Councilor Fosle to grumble during the closing remarks about how such resolutions seem to snowball far beyond their initial intent. It concluded a long night of calls for fiscal restraint from Councilor Fosle; while that voice needs to be heard, his complaints often appeared haphazard and not altogether coherent. Until he can pull together his critiques into a well-honed message, he will be unlikely to generate more than a few polite nods from the Councilors who are closest to him in their political views. Otherwise, he comes across as a loose cannon, and it requires serious effort to filter his most cogent points out from all the other noise.

Raising the Staff: Duluth City Council Notes, 7/15/13

The Duluth City Council was in a chipper mood on Monday night, and not without good reason. Mayor Don Ness informed the Council that the city had won a Local Government of the Year award within the state of Minnesota, and Councilor Krug was “just as happy as can be” to announce that the city’s anti-synthetic drug ordinance is now officially on the books. It went into effect last Thursday, a restraining order against the city sought by synthetic drug seller Jim Carlson was rejected by a judge earlier in the day, and police report that service calls are already down by one third in the area surrounding Mr. Carlson’s business. (No one bothered to mention that one of these calls was related to an assault upon Mr. Carlson himself, at the hands of a deranged customer.)

The city council chamber was quite full for the meeting; though it only lasted an hour and did not involve a single vote that was not unanimous, many speakers made their way to the podium. Councilors Krause and Larson were missing in action, and most of the Council was in a summery mood and wore white, though Councilor Fosle, as always, wore black.

The first group of speakers to come forward took a stand on the issue of a Native American eagle staff that was planted in front of City Hall in 2011. The city recently claimed it was an unauthorized memorial that did not belong on city property, and ordered its removal. The city’s Native American community was none too fond of this decision. Ricky DeFoe, the Chair of the Duluth Indigenous Commission, railed against the “white hegemony” that was “fatal to itself, morally and spiritually,” and to the “world as a whole.” He explained that the eagle staff is a “spatial-iconic metaphor” that connected the people to land, space, and place, and juxtaposed it against other city monuments that celebrate European figures, such as the Angel of Hope and a statue of Leif Erickson, a Viking explorer who never came within a thousand miles of Duluth whom Duluth likes to celebrate anyway. The removal of the staff, he continued, amounted to “systemic racism,” and he claimed that his attempts to get a hearing in front of the council have been ignored.

Three speakers followed Mr. DeFoe and expressed similar sentiments. Mr. Gabriel Peltier greeted the council in Anishinaabe, framed the staff as a civil rights issue, and requested a conversation in good faith. Both he and the next speaker, Ms. Rebecca Domagala of the Human Rights Commission, likened the staff to a flag in its symbolic power. Mr. Allen Richardson, the final speaker, claimed the city “failed to use basic listening skills” and pointed out that Duluth was founded on land that, according to U.S. law at the time, should have been preserved as a reservation. Mr. Richardson closed by blasting the “silence of indifference” to Native American affairs common in the city.

As there was no official business involving the eagle staff before the Council, the Councilors could not respond until the end of the meeting, when most of the Native Americans and their supporters had already left the hall. Councilor Gardner, though at pains to make it clear she wanted to find a constructive resolution to the issue, did voice a pair of concerns. First, she disputed the notion that the city had ignored the Indigenous Commission, and said neither she nor Councilor Hartman had been approached for a meeting while serving as Council President. Second, while she admitted the staff was more subtle than a simple religious sign, she also reminded her colleagues of an explosive controversy surrounding the presence of a Ten Commandments monument on city property some years back. The Council, she suggested, would be wise to hold its previous line on issues of church-state separation. Councilors Julsrud and Boyle expressed hope for eventually “finding peace” on the issue, and Councilor Fosle, while not entirely clear in his comments, seemed to be disappointed the Native American groups had not been content with the offer to place the staff on Spirit Mountain, a site of religious significance to the Ojibwe in Duluth.

Several other speakers came forward before the meeting continued. There was a second plea in as many meetings to enforce the city’s fireworks ordinance; one man complained about zoning and planning issues around an office tower planned for downtown Duluth; a man expressed worry about a derelict property alongside his house; and a representative of the Hawk Ridge Bird Observatory clarified his group’s stance on possible development beneath the bird-watching area on the city’s east side.

After that, the Council cruised through most of its official agenda, the most significant action taken being the return of the long-tabled Pastoret Terrace project to the administration by a unanimous vote. Councilor Gardner explained that, after a meeting with the developer, the backers of the project decided not to pursue city-approved grant funding, but will instead move forward seeking other sources of funding for mixed-income and low-income housing at the site of the old Kozy Bar.

One last issue brought forth significant public input, as four citizens spoke on a pair of opposing resolutions; one which would make lower Piedmont Avenue an official truck route to receive state funding, and one to ban trucks from the same roadway. The speakers, all of whom live along Piedmont Avenue, begged the council to get rid of the trucks, which have drastically lowered the quality of life along that street as they go through countless shift points on their way up toward the mall. The trucks have “decimated” the neighborhood, with as many as sixty an hour climbing up what was supposed to be a residential street, causing excessive noise and vibrating one man’s deck away from his house. The Councilors rallied to their cause, with Councilor Fosle congratulating whoever had written the resolution for making exceptions for oversized windmill trucks that cannot use an alternate route. The truck ban passed, 7-0, rendering the second resolution academic.

In the closing comments unrelated to the eagle staff and synthetic drugs, the Councilors focused primarily on a street repair timeline. Council President Boyle introduced the timeline and suggested another open session for input was in order, while Councilor Fosle made it clear he opposed the process. Councilor Stauber had other issues with the timeline, which he and Council President Boyle appeared to resolve after a brief back-and-forth. Councilor Fosle expressed some incredulity over taxes levied on the sale of old bricks torn out of the recently repaved Superior Street, and Mayor Ness promised to look into the matter. Councilor Hartman wrapped things up by reminding the public that the filing deadline for the 2013 city elections is tomorrow, and the Council then adjourned to its three-week summer recess. 

Let’s All Agree on Everything and Finish in Twenty Minutes: Duluth City Council Notes, 7/1/13

It was a windy day in Duluth today, and the Duluth City Council decided to breeze through its meeting in a mere 21 minutes. The Council chamber was on the empty side, though Troop 9 from Glen Avon, looking every bit like the platonic ideal of a group of Boy Scouts, showed up to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Council President Boyle came to chat with them a bit before the meeting started, while Councilor Hartman snuck in a slice of pizza and some grapes. After their colorful wardrobes last week, most of the Councilors were in black.

Councilor Larson opened the official business by touching on some park safety issues, mostly still dating back to last year’s flood; Chief Administrative Officer David Montgomery made it clear that another so-called concern, the lack of fencing along a heavily vegetated stretch of railroad track, was not really a concern. Councilor Hartman apologized for not noticing several Councilors’ lit buttons during the Committee of the Whole meeting, and Councilor Krug celebrated the success of the much-anticipated social with the School Board.

After again tabling the Pastoret Terrace housing project, the Council heard from a citizen whose name was not made entirely clear. He spoke on the AFSCME contract that was on the table, and said that while he was fine with the contract (which, mercifully, did not involve much wrangling between the city and the union this year), he hoped the city would look into the “abusive” use of overtime by city workers. Councilor Fosle and Mr. Montgomery assured the speaker that the city is well aware of some past issues involving Public Works employees, and has taken some steps to rein in excessive overtime. Mr. Montgomery noted that some overtime was inevitable, however, what with water main breaks at two in the morning and occasional police action. The union contract passed along with the rest of the consent agenda, 9-0, as did several easements, reclassifications, and a permit for an exhaust fan. The mayor’s administration pulled the plumbing ordinance first introduced last week, likely after the plumbers’ union made its objections clear. That took care of all of the business on the agenda.

In the closing comments, Councilor Krug raised a pair of concerns. First, she complained about the lack of a street plan in the current iteration of the 2014 budget, a worry echoed by Councilor Julsrud. At the very least, she argued, the city needs some sort of “enhanced pothole program” to repair the inevitable damage to Duluth streets after the snowmelt. Her second concern was a weekend letter to the editor in the Duluth News-Tribune criticizing the level of public safety along the Lakewalk. Given Duluth’s reliance on tourism money, she suggested the Council bring Chief of Police Gordon Ramsay before their next Committee of the Whole meeting to learn if crime statistics substantiate the letter’s claim. Councilor Gardner thought this was a good idea, and also suggested a city attorney join the party so as to discuss the implications of the new synthetic drug ordinances, which Mayor Don Ness will sign in the next two weeks. Councilor Fosle opined that the perceptions about crime were related to a series of recent violent crimes in the city; Mr. Montgomery agreed, but said the violent crimes were all among people who knew each other, and thus not of the random sort that might deter people from walking on the Lakewalk. Regardless, it sounded like the Council is up for a serious discussion on crime in Duluth at the next Committee of the Whole meeting, which may be well worth attending.

For tonight, however, the Council was happy to wrap things up in record time. The Boy Scout troop’s leader assured his charges they could come back again if they felt shortchanged. It didn’t sound like they were too sad about missing out on endless council bickering, but, then, there are some of us who are entertained by that sort of thing. I’ll be back with more in another two weeks.

Of Pets, Bike Trails, and Rentals: Duluth City Council Notes, 6/24/13

Two weeks after wrestling with synthetic marijuana and various urban blights, the Duluth City Council settled in for a more mundane session on Monday night. Spring overstayed its welcome in Duluth this year, and with summer finally on hand and no terribly weighty issues in front of them, the Councilors were in a sunny mood. They joked freely with one another, and sported their summery wardrobes; Councilor Hartman looked dapper in a light-colored suit, while Councilor Gardner broke out a turquoise top. Councilor Larson was the sharpest of the bunch in a bold vermilion sun dress, while Councilor Krause, loathe to be outshone by anyone, went with a pink polo shirt. Councilor Fosle wore black.

There was a decent crowd on hand in the council chamber, though I appeared to be the only attendee not speaking on any issue, or there in solidarity with a speaker. The opening remarks were fairly straightforward; Councilor Gardner gave an update on the Park Point Small Area Plan, which no longer includes a 9-story hotel along the spit of land sticking out into Lake Superior. Councilor Krug reminded the Council of an upcoming social with the School Board, and Councilor Julsrud asked the mayor’s office to look into possible city input in Minnesota Power’s 15-year plan. A resident of Central Hillside, “at the risk of sounding like the neighborhood grumpy curmudgeon,” urged the Council to enforce existing ordinances on firecrackers on the Hillside, as he would like to get some sleep during the month of July.

After again tabling the Pastoret Terrace plan they’d tabled two weeks ago, the Council moved on to its first issue of any contention, which was a proposal by Councilor Stauber to license pets owned in the city of Duluth, and fine owners who failed to spay or neuter their animals. Councilor Gardner applauded Councilor Stauber’s efforts, and was pleased to report that money from the fines would go straight to a local animal shelter. Councilors Julsrud, Krause, and Fosle all spoke in opposition to the measure. Councilor Julsrud wanted an exception for impounded animals, while Councilor Krause listed several cases in which the mandatory spaying or neutering of pets would be “imposing a value” on the citizens of Duluth. He also doubted that money from fines would be enough to improve the animal shelter. Councilor Fosle concurred, and said he would prefer a simple licensing system without the spaying or neutering stipulations.

The eternally peppy Councilor Hartman disagreed, saying that more licensing was necessary, and that any legislation that moved in that direction was a good thing. Councilor Krug, after lauding the value of community and the responsibilities and expectations that come with it, explained that the measure was not an imposition of values. Council President Boyle wrapped up the discussion by praising the licensing system, and the resolution passed, 6-3.

After unanimously approving a street repair project and a resolution supporting an effort to curb the spread of Asian water carp into the Great Lakes, the Council took up a contract for the construction of two mountain bike trails in Duluth. Mr. Eric Viken of Cyclists of Gitchee Gumee Shores (COGGS) plugged the measure, claiming it would help create the “largest urban mountain bike trail system in the country,” and pointed to the economic and public health benefits enjoyed by other communities that had made similar investments. Councilors Larson and Julsrud celebrated the measure, pointing to other sources of funding that would help with the project; Councilor Juslrud told a story of a friend who had broken an arm biking on an existing  trail recently, and said, laughing, that it was “a great way to break your arm!”

Councilors Fosle and Krause led the opposition to the resolutions, and claimed it was a poor use of Parks and Rec money that would be better directed to community centers and youth programs. Councilor Fosle, who represents the western end of the city, said there are six community centers in his district that remain closed despite the passage of a Parks and Rec referendum in 2011, and Councilor Krause also spoke of the “promise of the referendum” going unfulfilled. One community center in his district was “leaking like a sieve,” while another “looks like it’s from 1922.” Of the public meetings that produced the trail plan, he said that “those who show up, win,” suggesting they are not truly reflective of public opinion. He went on to make a more philosophical plea, pointing to a mindset of “new things good, old things bad,” and said the “mundane and boring” things get neglected as the Council “keep[s] adding stuff and [doesn’t] take care of it.” Hence, he argued, the need to take a stand on the bike trails and vote ‘no’, lest the community centers lapse into further disrepair, doomed to be self-funded by parents or closed.

David Montgomery, the Chief Administrative Officer of the city, defended the trail plan with a vision of parks as spaces, with trails as connections between them; he explained it as an evolution from past models that focused on the community centers. Councilor Hartman peppily added survey numbers backing up this claim. Councilor Gardner said that, while the Councilors Fosle and Krause were right to some degree, lots of people showed up at the meetings on parks, and Councilor Julsrud said she was working on a plan for youth program funding. The resolution passed, 7-2.

A group of plumbers from a local union waited out these discussions to support their president, who spoke against a newly-introduced resolution that would, it seemed, make it easier for non-plumbers to do plumbing work. The union boss claimed such work by non-plumbers was potentially dangerous given the lack of credentials required, especially on projects involving businesses that might have hazardous gases on hand. The resolution will be taken up in future meetings.

The last measure to generate debate was a proposal by Councilor Fosle to amend the city’s rental licensing process. Three citizens, at least two of whom were landlords, spoke against the ordinance, claiming it only further complicated an already messy system. The measure aimed to make it easier for family members or otherwise romantically involved people to rent to one another, but the landlords found it unenforceable, and also thought it would be difficult to effectively deal with complaints about such properties with no landlord on hand. One landlord said it opened the door for distant parents to buy houses for their college-aged students to rent, which in the past had created many problem houses in neighborhoods. Another landlord took an unexplained shot at the “party initiating the amendment,” which left Councilor Fosle indignant. Council President Boyle said the new licensing measures adopted several years prior had led to a drastic reduction in complaints, and did not find it wise to mess with them at the present. The measure failed, 7-2, with Councilors Fosle and Krause again joining forces in a losing cause. The Council then concluded its meeting with further excitement by Councilor Krug for their upcoming social with the School Board.

The City of Duluth vs. Urban Blights: City Council Meeting Notes, 6/10/13

At various times on this blog, I’ve emphasized the importance of only worrying about the things one can control; that is, focusing on the most immediate issues around our lives rather than obsessing over what’s going on at the national or international level. Seeking to practice what I preach, I went to the Duluth City Council meeting last night. (I hasten to note here that care for the local need not necessarily involve formal political structures; it is simply one of many options, and a somewhat entertaining one in a city such as Duluth, which is large enough to have some “big city problems,” but small enough that there are few degrees of separation between anyone in town.) What follows is an account of the June 11, 2013 Duluth City Council Meeting.

The meeting took place in the council chamber on the third floor of city hall, a rectangular room with a spectacular view of the Duluth harbor that allows bored Councilors and writers to gaze out at the huge ships when they so choose. Attendance was limited primarily to citizens with immediate business before the council, though a local blogger who is running for the Council this fall was bouncing around the room and snapping pictures as if he already owned the place, and there were a handful of residents there to cheer the council on in its ongoing battle with a man named Jim Carlson. (I will refrain from making further comments about the blogger so as to keep my own blog from sinking to his level.)

The first item on the agenda revolved around Duluth’s biggest ongoing controversy, the sale of synthetic marijuana at a downtown head shop called the Last Place on Earth (LPOE). The city has been at war with Mr. Carlson, the shop’s owner, for years now, and the litany of complaints against LPOE grows ever longer. A representative from a local hospital described the situation as a “public health crisis,” and one councilor described the effects of the bath salts and other marijuana substitutes as “worse than cocaine.” Customers come from far and wide to purchase LPOE’s product, leading to loitering and vagrancy on the block in front of LPOE, an area of downtown that has otherwise been somewhat gentrified in recent years. The Chamber of Commerce has rallied behind the effort to thwart LPOE, citing serious losses for local businesses. Councilor Larson and Council President Boyle (who have experience in these matters) noted the added difficulties of getting marijuana substitute users back on their feet, and the widespread social consequences of drug use.

On Monday night, the Council took up a resolution that would regulate the sale of synthetic marijuana in the city of Duluth. Mr. Carlson came to share his thoughts, and took the stand rocking a green ensemble and a ragged grey beard one might expect to find on a Cuban revolutionary after several months fighting in the jungles. The image befits Mr. Carlson, a man who has pretensions of rebellion—he was on the ballot in several states in last year’s presidential election as the candidate of the Grassroots Party—but in the end seems to be in it only for himself, a man who believes that legality determines morality. Alas, Mr. Carlson lacked the charisma of a Castro or a Guevara, and limited his remarks to a few familiar points: he insisted this new measure constituted an endorsement of his business, and that the city would have to stop charging him for the extra police officers assigned to his block and return various seized assets.

The Councilors then took turns railing against Mr. Carlson and his business. Councilor Krug made it quite clear the measure was no endorsement of synthetic marijuana, but simply a stopgap bureaucratic measure to be used until state or federal law bans it. The intensity of the rhetoric varied; Councilor Fosle said his problem was with the product, not the business itself, and that he had only decided to support the measure after a National Geographic special he’d watched the night before said regulation was an effective tactic, while Councilor Julsrud said she would not rest until the business no longer exists. The lone vote against the measure came from Councilor Stauber, the longest-tenured Councilor and, as one of its more conservative members, a frequent voice in the wilderness. Councilor Stauber’s objection was, it seemed, a pertinent one: he worried that past efforts to control LPOE had simply increased Mr. Carlson’s celebrity, and that the measure might lead to even more litigation. A number of the councilors spoke past his objections as they piled on to Mr. Carlson, though Councilors Krause and Hartman argued the stakes of the problem were great enough to justify any ensuing legal battles, and Councilor Hartman said he doubted Mr. Carlson’s celebrity could grow any bigger than it already is. The measure passed, 8-1, and the Council moved on to other matters.

The second big issue on the agenda involved a pair of projects that seek to turn unused buildings into low-income housing that required Council support to qualify for grant funding. One, a repurposed Lincoln Park Middle School, was a shoo-in; the more controversial agenda item asked to council to elevate a second project at the site of the former Kozy Bar to equal status with the Lincoln Park project. The Kozy was a notorious Duluth establishment that perhaps once rivaled LPOE (just a block away) as the site most often visited by police in the city. It burned in a fire several years ago—a fire that was “quite honestly a relief,” according to Councilor Julsrud—and the shell of the Pastoret Terrace building it occupied, which was designed by a famed local architect, has been empty ever since.

Councilor Gardner, another longtime member and one of its most vigorous (and long-winded), read a letter from local historian Tony Dierckins that explained the need to save the Pastoret Terrace building, particularly since it might not be able to withstand another winter without some construction. Several Councilors noted the serious need for low income housing in Duluth, though Councilor Fosle had a rather murky counterargument to this claim involving U-Haul usage patterns.

However, as the debate unfolded, it became clear the Council had its doubts about the Pastoret Terrace project. Councilor Krause summed them up well, pointing to the very high density of the apartments coupled with poor ratio of resources (ie. food and support services) to institutions of vice in the area (LPOE, the Fon Du Luth Casino, a bar on the block) that might just lead to more of the same problems that led the Kozy to be Ground Zero for Duluth’s urban blight. Councilor Gardner countered that this is how downtown living is, and that there would be adequate support for residents who required it. The developer, a Mr. Conlan, reminded the council that these grants were not public money, asked where else “these people” were going to live if not downtown. Councilor Larson strongly objected to this language, while a representative of Mayor Don Ness’s administration offered similar sentiments, and suggested mixed-use housing would be more appropriate.

Several councilors also had serious issues with the owner of the property, Eric Ringsred, who, as Councilor Fosle reminded the chamber seven or eight times, once claimed the City Council (along with several other prominent Duluth institutions) was culpable for the suicide of Jim Grandishar, a business partner of Mr. Ringsred’s who once sought to convert a historic Duluth theater into a strip club. Councilor Fosle made it fairly clear he would not associate himself with anything involving Mr. Ringsred, despite Mr. Conlan’s best efforts to point out that his ownership stake and lack of any other involvement in the project did not render him much of an obstacle. (If Councilor Stauber is the Council’s voice in the wilderness, then Councilor Fosle is its loose cannon. A well-built man with a contemplative goatee, he displayed an incredible talent for oscillating between sharp insights and tone-deaf head-scratchers throughout the evening.)

In the end, the Council voted 6-3 against elevating the priority of the Pastoret Terrace project, with Councilors Gardner, Hartman, and Stauber providing the dissent. They then discussed the ultimate fate of the Pastoret Terrace project before ultimately deciding to table it. This vote also came down to a 6-3 margin, though Councilor Julsrud made her inner conflict quite clear; the ‘no’ votes came from Councilors Krause, Krug, and Fosle.

The only other item that inspired much debate was an amendment to a disbursement of some $80,000 in parks and rec grant funds proposed by Councilors Gardner and Krause, who suggested that money for informational kiosks along the lakefront Lakewalk path should come out of the tourism budget instead of park money. While the Councilors seemed to agree this was a sensible idea, Chief Administrative Officer Montgomery argued was more important to respect the existing vetting process, and Councilor Fosle, in one of his insightful moments, noted the danger of setting a precedent for the selective addition and subtraction of projects from omnibus funding measures. The amendment failed, 7-2.

The meeting concluded with a celebration of a new set of picnic tables in front of the library, a call to help set a new playground in Lester Park on Saturday, and plans for a City Council-School Board social at which the Councilors were told that their attendance had better be superior to that of the School Board members. And while the fate of a couple of blighted blocks in Downtown Duluth wasn’t all that much clearer, there were, at least, some signs of movement.