A divided Ely City Council shot down a request from the planning commission to seek bids for a review of the city’s comprehensive plan.
The issue generated the most discussion of any agenda item Tuesday night at City Hall, and a slim majority cited cost considerations and priorities in rejecting the motion advanced by Emily Roose, who is also part of the planning and zoning commission.
Roose and council member Adam Bisbee were in favor of the motion, but they were outvoted by council members Al Forsman, John Lahtonen and Jerome Debeltz, and mayor Heidi Omerza. Member Angela Campbell was absent.
“There are many other things the city could be spending money on that make more sense,” said Forsman, who voiced concerns that revising or updating the comprehensive plan could cost as much as $50,000. “I feel we have a very complete plan right now.”
Roose countered that the city had little to lose by simply seeking proposals, as was recommended both by the planning and zoning commission and a comprehensive plan steering committee.
“If they all come back really expensive, then we have to find an alternative,” said Roose. “I do think it would be a good use of our time to at least put out the RFP to understand what is out there.”
The comprehensive plan focuses on land use and was written 15 years ago, and Roose told the council that the steering committee believes it’s time for an update or perhaps a whole new plan, and that an outside consultant’s help is needed to spur that process alone.
“They have the expertise to compile a plan into a document that fits the committee’s goals of creating a plan that’s organized, simple and easily understood,” said Roose.
Roose described the plan as “of upmost importance,” and called it “the council and staff’s guiding document,” when it comes to land use.
While there seemed to be consensus at the council table over the importance of the comprehensive plan, there were divisions over the need for outside help.
Forsman suggested revisions could be done “in house” by the planning commission and city staff, and clerk-treasurer Harold Langowski appeared to agree and said “we could utilize committees and city staff to make those revisions and put this together, and I think we could have it done in a year.”
Langowski also urged the council not to seek proposals if they had no intention of following through and awarding a contract.
During the council’s debate, Lahtonen circled back to financial considerations.
“We’re not in the kind of shape (to spend between $25,000 and $50,000) when somebody in house could do the job,” said Lahtonen. “It’s poor government right now if we spend money like this.” Forsman made a similar argument and added “it seems to be like this is putting money at work that doesn’t need to be done.”
But Roose argued that the financial implications wouldn’t be known until the request for proposals is completed.
“We’re really doing our due diligence to figure out what it’s going to cost us to get where we’re trying to go,” she said.
Omerza asked if the city has been hindered in funding requests because the current plan has not been updated, and at least this week, there were no indications that it has had a negative impact.
Forsman said “I fully agree the comprehensive plan is a very important document. You have to have it and it needs to be current and needs to be reviewed... We already have one and I think it works.
Forsman later added “I would refer to our former mayor who would say ‘how many sidewalks are we not going to do because the comprehensive plan needs to be redone.’”
