Council skirting law’s requirements
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
At the March 4 Polson council meeting, the Polson Redevelopment Agency Board asked the commission to approve borrowing $641,000 for projects to be repaid using Tax Increment Financing funds.
During the meeting, Commissioner Campbell said, “… the PRA is asking the commission to authorize bonds of $641,000 based on no detailed information … or public input.” He went on to say, “It would be important to get public comment on the design … but at this point there are no designs to have public comment on.”
The PRA spokesman stated, “This was a concern of the PRA about seeking planning board approval [sic, recommendation] and they asked for an opinion from the city attorney.”
The attorney’s response was, “I find no authority for the proposition that ‘urban renewal projects’ are subject to presentation first to the planning board.”
State law (MCA 75-7-211) says, “For the area containing the lake in question, the governing body shall seek the recommendation of the planning board as to the compliance of the proposed work with the criteria for issuance of a permit.”
The planning board was not allowed to conduct a public hearing.
The projects are both in the lake, one being a walkway under the bridge and the other being a reconstruction of the old city dock. City maps show the city limits coinciding with the high-water line of the lake. More than 90 percent of both projects are outside the city. To avoid this inconvenience, the city retained the services of a bond attorney, the brother-in-law of a PRA member, who stated, “The projects are within the city limits and within the TIF district, since they start from city property within the city limits.”
Relying on the city attorney’s inability to find the “authority for the proposition” that appears to be clearly stated in state law, the council decided that they didn’t need public involvement. But would it not have been a good idea to give the public an opportunity to provide input?
Apparently not, since they voted unanimously in favor of the $641,000 proposal.
Bob Fulton
Polson
