Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

When was the open meeting to approve easement purchase?

Posted

After reading Greenwood Twp. Supervisor Gene Baland’s Dec. 5 “There was no violation of the Open Meeting Law” letter to the editor, I am saddened by his attempt to confuse the issue of the new driveway construction off of the Birch Point Road, which came as a surprise this fall.

He does not address the fact that there was no Town Board discussion or vote authorizing the township to acquire a property easement at a cost of $1,636 in legal fees. There also was no Town Board discussion or vote to authorize the purchase of the culvert and fill that were put in to create the beginning of an unapproved and questionable new driveway. He did say that he “consulted with [Board Chair] Tom Aro.” Keep in mind that there are three other Town Board members who should have discussed and voted on these actions at an OPEN MEETING. This is the violation of the Open Meeting Law.

 The timeline is revealing. The Nov. 21 Timberjay article states that “Baland had the support of board chairman Tom Aro and the tennis court site planning committee when he pursued the easement and then went forward to hire Holmes Excavating of Embarrass to install a culvert in the old road.” (Note that there actually is no “old road” there). “However, Baland said he didn’t get the board’s approval before doing so because there wasn’t enough time.” “Baland said landowner Bob Reed gave permission for the easement on Sept. 8.” (The next evening, Sept. 9, there was a regular Town Board meeting, where there was absolutely no discussion of an easement or potential driveway. Why not?) “Baland said he next sought out Township Attorney Scott Neff on Sept. 11, who then recorded the deed with St. Louis County.” This is not the legal way to do township business. But it could be used as a backdoor way to get some questionable projects started.

 In his letter of last week, Baland said that he believed that the easement cost can be tied to the tennis court funding. In fact, the tennis court was funded properly through a majority vote of the Town Board in August of 2013, with no designation of funding for a new driveway, etc. The driveway is not related to the tennis court.

Baland also states in his letter that, “We also have in our budget a community enhancement fund that could have been used to fund the expenditure if need be.” Baland is incorrect on this also. The Community Enhancement Fund is a revolving fund designated for one use. Money is loaned out of it to township people for septic system improvements. It is not a slush fund.

 The tennis court, in my opinion, is a good project. It will be used. If the project totals less than the designated $50,000, leftover money should stay in the general fund. Any new projects need to have an honest discussion and open vote to show that they stand on their own—keeping in mind that we are being asked to pay significantly more for our schools, etc. Peek again at your estimated property tax for 2015 and note the levy portions. We need to try to keep these under control. And we don’t need to try and duplicate what is being built at the new State Park.

Lee Peterson

Greenwood Twp., Minn.