Should the May 22 city council meeting be opened for audience comments and questions?
Absolutely!
Time is of the essence because a momentous decision hangs in the balance at that meeting, and it could affect the future of Sartell for years to come. The question is whether or not to approve a purchase agreement for the selling of city-owned land to a private company so that company can put in a golf course where there already is a golf course.
A brief summary: In 2008, Sartell purchased 160 acres of land that had been a privately owned golf course in the heart of the city. The cost was about $3.5 million and funds came mostly from the regional half-cent sales tax. The city then entered into a long-time lease with Boulder Ridge Golf to make that 18-hole course into a 9-hole course and open for business as the 81-acre Pine Ridge Golf Course.
Last year, for some reason or another, the city began seeking buyers for 61 acres. One buyer was chosen, Three Tees LLD, for a purchase price of $426,000.
At the last council meeting, May 8, three council members (Tim Elness, Alex Lewandowski, Jill Smith) said they preferred not to open the meeting to let audience members speak. Their rationale was that the discussion by council members was not a “public hearing” and that they’d already received comments via emails or in person from residents. Because a majority said so (3-2), Mayor Ryan Fitzthum felt compelled to accede to that request. He and council member Jed Meyer were very much in favor of opening the meeting. At that long meeting, on a 4-1 vote, it was agreed to table the issue until the March 22 meeting to try to resolve “discrepancies.”
So many questions linger, waiting for answers:
Why was the land-sale offered? List all reasons.
At the May 8 meeting, vague talk of “liabilities” kept surfacing. What precisely are the liabilities to the city of the current golf course?
Why was the purchase price so low, amounting to a city “subsidy” in the minds of some opponents?
Why did an online “Staff Memo” state Boulder Ridge requested termination of its lease when a co-owner of that company said that it certainly did not.
Why wasn’t at least one public hearing on the issue ever held? And why shouldn’t one be held as soon as possible?
Why is it that five former mayors and many former council members are adamantly opposed to the sale?
Those are just some of many unanswered questions.
At the last council meeting, the supporters of the land sale said the process had been open and transparent. In fact, it seems to have been more murky than transparent.
The taxpayers of Sartell should have plenty of say-so since they are the ones who voted for the half-cent sales tax that made that private land public parkland. Why return that public land to private hands?
Yes, it is possible that land-sale supporters have good answers to all those urgent questions. If so, the next meeting must be open so people in the audience can ask those questions and hear them answered.