Richland Center City Council met Tuesday night, Cobblestone project and Park Board discussed

The Richland Center City Council met last night, with an agenda highlighted by discussion on the future of the Cobblestone Inn project, and the possible reformation of the Park Board, in what turned out to be a spirited affair.

Alderperson Melony Walters explained the decision by the General Government Committee to recommend a six-month extension for the Cobblestone Inn Project, to continue to seek investors, and to allow the Mayor and the Economic Development Director to continue having active  discussions on the project.

Alderperson Doug Martyniuk pushed back, arguing against the extension, referring to it as, “kicking the can.”  Martyniuk suggested looking for a different hotel possibility, rather than continuing with Cobblestone, expressing frustration over what he perceived to be a lack of activity.  Mayor Karin Tepley stated there has been activity, and that there were ongoing discussions.  After some discussion, Attorney Michael Windle interrupted, explaining to Matyniuk, “You have the authority to move to amend”, after Martyniuk had said, “I see this as going nowhere.”

Martyniuk moved to amend the motion to allow a six month extension, changing to a three-month extension – the Council approved the amendment to the motion by a vote of 5-2, after Alderperson Rachel Schultz called the question, and requested a roll call vote.

Schultz then explained the amended motion in detail, asking if she correctly understood the details.  At that point, the Council unanimously approved the three-month extension of the project.

Tepley kicked off discussion of the Park Board issue by suggesting to the Council, “If it wants there to be a Park Board, recreate that body from the ground up.”  Tepley asked that rather than taking immediate action on the issue, discussion should be had to “chart the best path forward.”

Attorney Windle weighed in, expressing his concerns, saying there are “Four separate chapters within codes of ordinances that are impacted by the Park Board.”, adding, “Frankly, that’s not normal.”

Windle recommended allowing him to rewrite the Park Board Ordinance and recreate the body, before a reformation of the Park Board.  This would have sent the issue to the General Government Committee for discussion on how to move forward.

After a great deal of discussion, which brought emotion from the audience multiple times, Alderperson Schultz expressed concern, correctly explaining that there is a time limit on the opportunity to rescind the ordinance that dissolved the Park Board, and that a delay would cause the Council to “miss their window of opportunity.”

Eventually, Alderperson Chris Jarvis made a motion to rescind the ordinance that had dissolved the Park Board, which the Council unanimously approved.