by Dennis Dalman
At its May 22 meeting, the Sartell City Council, by a 3-2 vote, approved the sale of golf-course land in the heart of the city.
The discussion and decision about that controversial issue came during the last half of a 4.5-hour marathon meeting.
Voting for the sale were council members Tim Elness, Alex Lewandowski and Jill Smith. They all maintained the sale would improve that property, bring new and improved amenities, retain that land as green space and avoid that property from becoming a financial liability to the city’s taxpayers. The irrigation system there is old and badly in need of major repairs. A new one would cost in a range of $200,000 to nearly $1 million, it was noted. Elness said he had received many comments very much in favor of the land-sale.
Voting against it were council member Jed Meyer and Mayor Ryan Fitzthum. They said there is no need to sell that land, that it should remain the property of the city for future parkland needs and that those in favor of the sale are greatly exaggerating “imminent” financial liabilities to the city concerning that property.
In the Open Forum at the beginning of the May 22 meeting, two men spoke against the sale proposal. Former Sartell City Council member and former mayor Joe Perske, who is now a Stearns County commissioner, pointed to the former mayors and council members in the audience who are adamantly opposed to the sale. He said many emails, phone calls and letters from residents opposed to selling that property have been sent. The community, Perske asserted, is being divided partly because of controversies on the school board that “have nothing to do with education.” The controversy about selling city land is yet another divisive factor in the city, he added.
The other Open Forum speaker was city resident John Ellis who claimed some on the council did not respond to emails, calls and letters of opposition (including Ellis’s own) that were sent to them. He accused some council members of not acting in the best interest of their constituents, as they were elected to do, comparing their actions to “taxation without representation.” Ellis said he was also disturbed that three council members at the May 8 meeting declined to agree to open the meeting for hearing comments from members of the audience.
The 3-2 council decision May 22 means the city will sell – for $426,000 – 81 acres of what is now the Pine Ridge Golf Club to Three Tees LLC, whose owner/chief manager is Brandon Testa, who owns the House of Pizza in Sartell.
Three Tees LLC is expected to make improvements to the clubhouse, the current parking lot and the golf course’s irrigation system.
In 2008, Sartell signed a lease agreement with the owners of Boulder Ridge who have long owned/managed the Boulder Ridge Golf Course in southwest St. Cloud. Under terms of the lease, Boulder Ridge turned what had been a previous golf course (the privately owned Sartell Golf Course) from an 18-hole course to a 9-hole one. The city purchased that private land in 2008, part of a 160-acre spread. The other half of that land was made into Pinecone Central Park via a public-private partnership. The city paid almost $3.5 million for the land with revenue from the regional half-cent sales tax.
The city will now give Boulder Ridge a one-year notification to the termination of its lease on May 23, 2024.
The purchase agreement between the city and Three Tees requires that land to remain operational as a golf course for 30 years, and any removal of that restriction would have to be approved unanimously by the current city council or future city councils. Three Tees also plans to add amenities on about three acres of land at the corner of the golf course – a restaurant, for example.
The land-sale discussion at the May 22 council meeting began with a presentation of a long, detailed background of the sale proposal, which was written and read aloud by Sartell City Administrator Anna Gruber.
The council then asked Gruber a flurry of questions for more than two hours.
The council members in favor of the sale said the new owner would bring some new amenities to that area while also maintaining the golf course. They also said it would prevent the city from having to take on any financial liabilities for the golf course, especially the need someday to replace an expensive irrigation system.
Council member Jed Meyer opposed the sale, saying the city was selling it for a price way too low. He also said that claims that the land poses risks of imminent financial liabilities to the city is just not true.
Mayor Fitzthum repeatedly said the council should put the “proposal” on “pause” until the council can meet with state legislators to find out for sure if the sale will jeopardize any future access to half-cent sales-tax revenue.
Earlier in the week, all council members received a letter written by State Rep. Tim O’Driscoll (R-Sartell) and State Sen. Jeff Howe (R-Rockville), who both expressed concerns about the sale because that land had been purchased by the half-cent sales tax.
City administrator Gruber assured Fitzthum the sale would not jeopardize future access to sales-tax revenue. Sartell Financial Director Rob Voshell said the city can expect about $1 million per year for the next 30 years if half-cent sales-tax revenue continues for that long of a period.
At the meeting, there was much discussion about keeping that sold land as a green space. Gruber said it has never been designated as parkland but that it could possibly be zoned by the city as a regional park district even when it is privately owned. The council requested Gruber and city staff look into that option.
Shortly before the vote was called, council member Meyer said he had been inundated by people asking him why public comment was not allowed at the May 8 meeting. He asked Gruber to explain the public input process.
Gruber said she had heard in the past two weeks lots of feedback from people about that issue, and she became unsettled by hearing verbal attacks against the three council members who voted against opening the May 8 meeting for comments from the audience. Gruber said not once through the nine-month process of the land-sale proposal did any council member or any staff-member, including herself, suggest having a public hearing.
“That’s on all of us,” she said. “We all have to be accountable and do better. I take full responsibility for that. It keeps me up at night because I wish I would have (called for a public hearing).”
Gruber did add, however, that public comments have never been allowed in meetings when the council is deliberating about “New Business” or “Old Business” items on the meeting’s agenda. If a “public hearing” item is on the agenda, comments from the audience are not only sought but encouraged.
