After the Grand Marais Park Board presented its long-term Recreation Area Master Plan to the public July 28, questions arose from those who were not happy with the final product.
Critics of the plan did not like the park board’s decision to keep its northeastern corner open to campers rather than turn it into community green space and to delineate only its current acre of wetland rather than restore three other acres that were wetlands in the past.
At the July 28 meeting, board chair Lindsay Mielke announced that the board would no longer be using the services of its consultant, Bob Bruce, who had advocated a site plan that eliminated campsites from the northeast corner and restored all four acres of wetland.
At the June 23 park board session, Bruce presented a site plan that included features not discussed in the two final site plan options presented at the public “listening session” held in May. At the July 7 regular park board meeting, Lindsay Mielke said, “When we got it I was pretty disappointed.”
Makeup of Master Plan committee
George Wilkes stated at the July 28 meeting that he thought the Master Plan committee should have represented more of a diverse range of perspectives.
Prior to holding numerous meetings to gather public opinions, the park board had considered various ways of including the community in the process, including having members of the public on the committee. They decided, however, not to add others to the committee.
On October 22, 2008, Mielke had stated, “If we involve more people, I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere.” Board member Todd Miller stated at the same meeting that while he wanted the community to have a voice in the process, he was concerned about the possibility of getting bogged down in contention if opposing groups were represented on the committee.
In the proposal Bruce sent before being hired, he stated, “It is critical that the committee is invested in the process and its outcome – it must be their plan, not [the] staff’s or the consultant’s. …It is our understanding the park board will be the working committee, Mike Roth and Dave Tersteeg the staff contacts, with Bob Bruce being the consultant team contact.”
On October 22, however, Bruce recommended having citizens representing various interests on the committee in addition to the park board.
Open meeting law
One question that arose was how the park board had decided to discontinue Bruce’s services if they had not met in an open meeting to discuss the decision.
According to a November 2008 information brief from the Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department, Minnesota’s open meeting law is meant “to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed about a public board’s decisions or to detect improper influences; to assure the public’s right to be informed; [and] to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body.”
According to Park Manager Dave Tersteeg, the city council, not the park board, holds the contract with Bob Bruce, and as of the July 28 meeting, the contract had not been terminated. Tersteeg said he had met that morning with park board chair Lindsay Mielke and City Administrator Mike Roth in response to park board input to staff regarding dissatisfaction with Bruce. At that meeting they decided to ask Bruce to stop working on the project, Tersteeg said.
How did Mielke, Tersteeg, and Roth know what the other park board members wanted to do about Bruce? The Minnesota House information brief states that serial meetings held through email, phone conversations, or letters in order to avoid open meeting law requirements are not allowed.
According to Mike Roth, two other park board members had given input prior to Roth’s meeting with Mielke and Tersteeg, he said. No serial meeting was held, and no grouping of more than three park board members took place, Roth said (four would be a quorum and would not be allowed under the open meeting law if park board business was discussed).
In an August 5 phone conversation, Mielke said she based her decision on feedback from the other park board members at previous meetings in which the board had indicated “how we were all disappointed in him.”
Thelast straw, Mielke said, was a set of comments he made to WTIP radio. According to a July 27 Boreal Access internet feed from WTIP Radio, Bruce asserted that the committee would have benefitted from citizen representation and said, “I think that the interests of the campground users are well-represented, but I’m not sure that the citizens of Grand Marais who own the land, after all, have the same interests in mind….” Mielke said that the park board considered input from the entire community, not just campground users.
Did the park board know Bruce had been instructed not to attend the public session July 28? “I’m sure that for most of them, it was a surprise,” Roth said.
Mielke said the rest of the park board was in support of the decision when they found out about it at the public meeting.
Fulfilling grant requirements
Concerns have been raised regarding whether the requirements of the Minnesota Lake Superior Coastal Program grant that
paid for the planning process can be fulfilled without Bruce.
The grant stipulates that a final report must be provided that includes a summary of the work completed, an assessment of the project’s impact, expected challenges, and lessons learned during the grant period. With the report the city must include things such as site plans, correspondence, and newspaper articles related to the project.
” On August 4, Roth said city staff would be compiling the final report, which will include the goals and policies that will guide any future changes to the park along with a site map. If the subcontractor that created the site maps for Bob Bruce up to this point is unwilling to do a final site map, Roth said, the city will hire someone else to do it.
Compatibility with conservation easement
Another question raised was whether the Master Plan complies with the Minnesota Land Trust conservation easement. The easement requires that the land be retained in the “predominantly natural and scenic condition” it was in when the agreement was signed in December 1996.
Minnesota Land Trust Director of Conservation Programs Kris Larson said in a public information meeting April 2 that he would make sure that any plans made by the park board would abide by the terms of the easement.
The conservation easement keeps industrial, commercial, and residential uses away from the zone, Mr. Larson said. Existing buildings could expand up to 50% without the Land Trust’s approval. Major changes to buildings, building uses, or roads would need to be approved.
“Clearly, the easement anticipated that changes would take place over time,” Larson said at that meeting.
The Land Trust’s approval is not needed on the Master Plan, Tersteeg said, and given all the options that were being considered at the April 2 meeting Larson attended, none were incompatible with the conservation easement.
In an August 5 phone conversation, Kris Larson said, “…We have not formally evaluated any plan related to the park, and as such, we haven’t said one way or the other whether any plan would conform to the conservation easement. …We look forward to getting to that point with the city. …We like to be aware of any plans and head off any plans that would be in violation of the easement. …From our perspective, we do hope that any plan that is approved follows the restrictions of the easement….”
A date for presentation of the Master Plan to the Grand Marais City Council has not been set.
Leave a Reply