Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press council on Blatnik Bridge routing and report tourism commission communication gaps
Summary
Two residents used public comment at the March 4 Superior Common Council meeting to raise concerns: one urged reconsideration of the Blatnik Bridge route and suggested alternatives, and another questioned transparency and missing minutes from the Tourism Development Commission.
Two members of the public spoke during the council’s March 4 public-comment period, urging the council to consider alternative approaches to the Blatnik Bridge reconstruction and calling attention to a lack of published Tourism Development Commission materials.
Jeff Monahan, speaking as a resident, said he has been closely following plans for the Blatnik Bridge reconstruction and believes the current route is wrong. He told the council he discussed the idea with staff at the Minnesota and Wisconsin departments of transportation and suggested routing the bridge to Connor's Point and East Second Street or using the western iron ore bridge near Duluth as a trucking alternative during reconstruction. "I still think it's a better route," Monahan said, and encouraged councilors to consider environmental and economic impacts as the project advances.
John Ramos, publisher of the Duluth Monitor, told the council the Tourism Development Commission has not posted minutes for meetings held Nov. 18, 2024 and Feb. 27, 2025 on the city's agenda center and said the commission chair has not provided a report to the council. "I don't understand the secrecy," Ramos said, asking the council to seek greater transparency.
Why it matters: The Blatnik Bridge is a regional transportation project with environmental and economic implications for Superior. Public requests for clarity about the tourism commission's records raise municipal-records and transparency questions that the council may choose to address.
Council response: The council accepted both public comments; no formal action was recorded on either issue during this meeting.
What speakers said (excerpted): Monahan urged councilors to consider routing and ecosystem impacts and said he had consulted state DOT staff and the Saint Louis River Estuary Project. Ramos requested that the council and the tourism commission make meeting minutes and reports available to the public; he said he was not alleging malfeasance but noted a pattern of missing materials.
No motions or votes followed these public comments at the March 4 meeting.
