The Spring Valley City Council met in regular session on September 9. All members were in attendance (Mayor Tony Archer, Luan Ruesink, Chris Danielson, John Dols, Mike Hadland and City Administrator Deb Zimmer).
Two public hearings were held immediatey prior to the council meeting. The first hearing was regarding Spring Valley Senior Living’s request for the city to approve “conduit bonding” for their upcoming expansion project. The project will add two wings onto the facility, and a total of 52 beds (including a 12 bed memory care unit). No members of the general public spoke regarding the issue.
Mike Bubany explained regarding conduit bonding that, in a similar fashion to how cities take out bonds for large projects, “The rules do allow for certain non-profits to borrow money tax-exempt as well, but they must receive a sort of stamp of approval from a local unit of government… so basically the city of Spring Valley puts their stamp of approval on it, but you’re not liable for it in any way…it reflects on you in no way, it doesn’t effect your credit rating.” He added, “As I understand it, they (Spring Valley Senior Living) will be paying you a fee of $10,000” for allowing the conduit bonding to proceed. The council voted to approve the conduit bonding request.
The second public hearing was on the proposed Dangerous Dog Ordinance. No members of the public addressed the council on the matter. Officer Jessy Betts (sheriff’s department) was asked about the issue, and he said since the city currently uses the Minnesota Statute regarding dangerous dogs, there does not appear to be much advantage to creating a city ordinance on the subject. He also stated that if the city approves the proposed ordinance, it would essentially mean that the city council would serve as “judge” during any appeals regarding the ordinance. Officer Betts said that the council would then be dealing with “emotionally charged people” as they sought to prove their animal was not a problem.
Officer Betts further explained that he discussed the matter with Lee Novotny, criminal prosecutor for the city, and that Novotny had said, “I’m not sure there’s a need for this ordinance… and it would create more work for the city.” The council voted unanimously not to adopt the ordinance.
During the regular council meeting, the council returned to an issue that was discussed at the August 26 meeting. At time, a motion was made to allow the fire department to use fundraising funds and donations for the purchase of a drone. That motion had died for lack of a second. On September 9, Luan Ruesink stated, “I’m still a little bit on the fence over the drone purchase. But I do not feel that the council should be able to dictate how the fire department uses their funds that they themselves worked to earn or to get, as well as the gifted money or donation money that they’ve received.”
Mike Hadland suggested that, going forward, the fire department put such funds into some type of account that would not require council approval prior to use. Deb Zimmer explained the rules regarding what types of accounts can be used. The council voted unanimously to approve the request to use the funds for a drone purchase.
The council discussed a request from Bryan Owens, who wishes to remove (or cover with dirt) the sidewalk on his property. The council discussed the general expectation is that if a property owner removes sidewalk, it is to be replaced. The council voted to deny the Owens request.
The council approved a price quote from Bargen Inc, for crack filling/street repairs. The council also voted to approve Pay Estimate #1 for $95,770 for the Industrial Park expansion project. The next regular meeting of the council will be Monday, September 23 at 6 p.m. As always, the public is welcome.
Leave a Reply