Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hibbing council pulls proposed local-review ordinance for transmission lines after public questions and packet omission
Summary
After a public commenter asked whether a late-added land-use amendment would allow city access to private property, councilors agreed to remove the item from tonight’s agenda to give staff time to include the missing ordinance language and consult residents and the utility.
A late-added proposed ordinance that would establish a formal local-review process for large energy transmission projects was removed from the Hibbing City Council agenda April 1 after public questions and staff acknowledged the ordinance text had not been included in the meeting packet.
During public forum, resident Mela Warner asked whether the amendment was aimed at contractors or whether it would give the city access to private property for the public good. Mr. Borland, who addressed the council on the item, said the proposal is intended to set a clear application, notice and public-hearing process for an applicant that chooses local review rather than pursuing state review through the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. He said the ordinance, as described to council, does not include a specific route or authorize taking property; landowners and adjacent owners would receive notice under the proposed process.
Council members and staff, however, said the ordinance language had not been included in the packet distributed to councilors and the public. City administrator Miss Prasinski (identified in the meeting transcript as city administrator) said she first learned the language was missing late and suggested the council either strike the item or defer it to a future meeting so staff could engage residents and the utility commission and provide the full materials.
The council voted to rescind its earlier agenda approval, strike the ordinance from tonight’s agenda and then reapprove the amended agenda. Several council members said they preferred additional outreach to affected residents before the council considered the ordinance. The item may return at a later meeting after staff follow-up; no local-review route or specific utility request was before the council at the April 1 meeting.
The action leaves in place the city’s option to offer local review in the future; as Mr. Borland noted, utilities can still pursue state-level review through the Public Utilities Commission. The council did not take any vote on the substance of the ordinance itself.
