City of Ironwood's Daily News Source

Ironwood - August 25, 2009

After reading recent editorials, I felt the need to address some incorrect information concerning the “caves” area and the Miner’s Memorial Heritage Park.

At the February 9, 2009 City Commission Meeting, City Manager Scott Erickson announced that “a joint workshop has been scheduled with the Planning Commission, Park & Recreation Committee, and City Commission for Tuesday, February 17th. The topic of discussion will be the development of a City Trail Plan.”

On February 12, 2009, Commissioner Robert Burchell and Commissioner Gemma Lamb requested in writing that this meeting be changed to a “Special Commission Meeting”. In their request, they state “it is unfair of us to ask them to appear in a workshop format to discuss details of a plan that hasn’t even been formally presented to the City Commission”.

At the February 17th, 2009 meeting, we were provided with a proposal for the Miners’ Memorial Heritage park that stated:

“Resolved, That the Parks and Recreations Committee wishes to move forward with the creation of the Miners’ Memorial Heritage Park.

Accordingly, the Parks and Recreation Committee requests that the City Commission designate the land known as “the caves” area (including “the fields” and all the contiguous city owned land zoned “open” running diagonally through town) as the Miners Memorial Heritage Park, and remove any said land from the surplus land list”.

What was initially supposed to be a workshop concerning the development of a City Trail Plan turned into a request to decide the disposition of a large section of city owned land. What was the intent behind this change? Was the City Commission supposed to vote blindly on a resolution that it was unaware it was expected to consider? Was there to be no opportunity for public input before we made a decision of this magnitude?

Commissioners asked numerous questions concerning how activities that were currently being conducted in the “caves” area were being addressed. We were told that those uses had NOT been considered in their proposal. The Comprehensive Deer Management Hunt had NOT been considered. The motorized use by snowmobiles and ATV’s had NOT been considered.

When asked specifically about the ATVs that use the “caves” area, we were told that “it was not their problem”. The Park group alleged that the ATVs were using the property ILLEGALLY and therefore they did not have to consider them in their plan. ATV use is LEGAL on Public Land unless an ordinance prohibits such use. The Riverside Cemetery is the only city owned property where ATV use is specifically prohibited. Those citizens who have been riding their ATVs in the “caves” area on public property have been doing so LEGALLY.

The Motion to approve Resolution #09-003 adopting the formation of the proposed “Miner’s Memorial Heritage Park” failed on a 3-2 vote. After further discussion, an amended Resolution was adopted UNANIMOUSLY, approving the “concept” of the “Miner’s Memorial Heritage Park”.

I thought the idea of a “Miner’s Memorial Heritage Park” was a very good one. However, I felt additional information was needed concerning the ownership of the “caves” area. I also felt that with the vast number of people who use the “caves” area, we could not move forward with the Park concept without receiving input from those people.

At workshops held for public input, people continuously asked the questions “why do we have to change things “we have co-existed in this area for years”. People who walk and bicycle through the area have shared the “caves”and the trails within it successfully for years with ATV’s and snowmobiles.

My recent motion authorizing ATV use in the “caves” area merely recognized the legal right the ATV’s already had to use the area. This created NO change to how the area has been used in the past and is currently being used. I have had people tell me that they have walked in the “caves” area for years and have NEVER seen an ATV.

During one of the recent hikes into the “caves” area, there was a group of ATVers riding in the “caves” area at the same time. Neither group was aware the other was there. The property is large enough for all groups to recreate.

Based upon the feedback received at the workshops, city staff felt that a small group from each interested party would be the most efficient way to address activities within the “caves” area. Meetings like these occur on a daily basis and are a routine part of running the city. These meetings are not “closed” and are not illegal.

At the February 17th meeting, the city commission requested that “city-owned parcels be brought back to the City Commission for further use consideration” after the title search clarified ownership questions. City staff presented the City Commission with the results of those title searches at the August 10th, 2009 meeting. My request of City Staff to identify any parcels that may be saleable simply adhered to our previous decision.

A recent editorial stated that “part of the land at risk for sale is the parcel adjacent to and on the Pabst Mine disaster site, and the site where we propose to erect a memorial to the people of the area who built our communities”. Until City Staff brings back their results, it is impossible to know if the property is one and the same. And, since the location of the disaster is located on private property, it would be impossible for the City to sell land it does not own.

The job of a City Commissioner is never an easy one. Someone is always unhappy with a decision we make. I support the creation of a Miners Memorial Heritage Park AND I support a plan for safe ATV and snowmobile use in the “caves” area.

Suzanne Toth