Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Authority Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Bethel council opens but continues EDA enabling-resolution public hearing after notice error
Summary
Council opened a public hearing on changing the Economic Development Authority's governance but voted to continue the hearing until the first meeting in May after staff said the notice did not meet the 14-day statutory requirement.
The City Council of East Bethel opened a public hearing on April 14 to consider an enabling resolution to change the governance of the City of East Bethel Economic Development Authority (EDA) but voted to continue the hearing to the first meeting in May after staff said the public-notice requirement had not been met.
City Attorney (attorney Larson) told the council that “by statute, you need to provide a public hearing, public hearing notice, and a 2 week notice,” and that the city had not given the required 14 days. Larson recommended the council open the hearing so members of the public could comment and then continue it to the May meeting for final action.
The change under consideration would reduce the EDA board from seven members—two council members and five appointed citizens—to a five-member board comprised of council members only, phased in as current citizen terms expire. Larson said the governance change is allowed under state law but that terms for currently appointed members would run out unless they resigned.
Two residents submitted comments. A written letter from Brian Bazanson was read into the record objecting to the change and saying it was not handled transparently. Rita Bilgin, a resident who spoke during public comment, said East Bethel should not preclude willing citizens from serving on authorities and councils.
Council members debated the merits. One council member said citizen members had been “ineffective” and that EDA meetings sometimes delayed action because recommendations had to return to council. Other members pressed the value of citizen voices and noted the city restored a public forum so residents could address the council directly.
After opening the hearing and hearing public comment, the council voted to “suspend and continue the public hearing until the first meeting in May” so the city could re-notice the hearing in compliance with the 14‑day requirement. The motion passed with no opposition.
The matter will return to council after the city clerk publishes the corrected public hearing notice and the required two-week comment period has passed.
