Renewing the Library

Last week’s City Attorney discussion went on so long (read about the decision somewhere else), we canceled the work session on the CIP and the Library (thank you, Mayor Rossing for not starting the discussion at 10:30 pm).   I don’t anticipate the discussion will be much like the Wild Rumpus, but you never know.  I will try not to gnash my terrible teeth or roll my terrible eyes no matter how the conversation goes.

I don’t have much else to add on the “why is it important?” or “do we need it?” topics; I covered those here.   Instead, other news reminds me of the bigger downtown context in which the Library plans to expand.   In the Saturday News (with more to come Wednesday), there were some photos and a brief piece about developer Jerry Anderson’s proposed development for the Community Resource Bank site.   Jerry gave me a preview of the plans last week and I’m excited about this project.

What does this have to do with the Library? Nothing directly, but the one important feature the proposed 49,000 s.f. project would not include is parking (Northfield zoning does not require that projects in the C-1 Downtown zoning district provide parking).

Parking downtown is a big issue:

• Jerry Anderson’s 49,000 s.f. project will generate demand for parking while creating no new parking spaces.
• The Library expansion will also need parking.  The proposed plan is to build south and eliminate the parking on 3rd Street and the city parking lot at 3rd and Washington Street.   The plans also sketch in underground parking as part of the expansion, but the amount of parking to be constructed has not been determined.   The Library will generate demand for some additional parking,  will construct new parking, but will eliminate parking that already exists.
• Downtown business owners have long complained about a lack of parking.
• The NDDC continues to work on parking (and has been meeting with Library Board representatives to see how parking can be addressed as part of the Library project).
• The draft CIP even includes money for a parking ramp study suggesting this issue is significant…

I have no answers here, but I would like to see the City and private developers like Mr Anderson work on a shared solution for parking north of 4th Street as a shared part of the projects on the table.   For those who would like to eliminate parking in the hopes of making downtown Northfield a haven for bicycles, pedestrians and transit users I’d say we have to accommodate the reality we currently have while working toward the ideal we would like to see.

Council meetings now streamed live on KYMN

Now you can watch the Council in real time in the comfort of your own home – KYMN is now streaming Council meetings live (you can also watch the video later, too).   Imagine the possibilities – not only can you see what we’re up to while folding the laundry, you could make it a social event – why get together to watch Monday Night Football when you could invite your political junkie friends over for a beer and have a fun night of local government.

More about the green roof

For those who have followed my green roof project, there’s more – I’ll be talking informally at Just Food Co-op about my roof this Saturday, November 7 @ 10:30 am.

CIP discussion: Library expansion

Andrew Carnegie

Last week’s worksession was all about the Safety Center; this week it’s the other Big Project: the Library expansion.

Northfield’s Public Library is a Carnegie Library, one of more than 2,000 libraries funded by one of my favorite robber barons, Andrew Carnegie.   The Carnegie Corporation provided a $10,000 grant back in 1908 to build Northfield’s library.  Almost all Carnegie libraries were built using  “The Carnegie Formula.”  A town needed to provide matching funds plus demonstrate the need for the library, furnish the land for the building, provide 10% of the construction cost for annual operating costs, and provide free service.

The Carnegie Foundation made a wonderful investment in Northfield more than 100 years ago; now Northfield has the opportunity to invest again by funding expansion of our Carnegie Library.

The Carnegie Formula is still relevant, too.

• Carnegie’s philanthropy leveraged local investment to build libraries and fund their operation.  This time, the process works the other way – by investing public money – your tax dollars – the City will work to leverage additional private contributions – charitable donations, grants, etc. to make this project work.
• Demonstrated need:  The Library Board has undertaken extensive long range planning and documented their facilities needs; these documents are available here.
• Building site: Public input showed that the overwhelming preference was to expand on the current site downtown.
• Operating funds: Current estimates of the expansion cost are around $10 million; the proposed library budget for 2010 is about $1 million – the relationship still seems to hold.
• Free service:  The Library serves us all without prejudice by providing access to information – print, on-line, DVDs, Bookmobile, live programming – free of charge.   The return on our investment may not be as easily quantifiable as dollars and sense, but I believe the Library builds community in broad, deep and significant ways.   For but one example, check out Art Rolnick on early literacy and economic development.

OK, obviously I think the Library does good work, is a good investment,  and is a good deal.  What’s this mean for including a library expansion in the city’s capital improvement program?

1. Northfield has deferred investment in facilities and we are now faced with a Safety Center and Library which lack storage space, space for services and equipment, modern technology, meeting and training space, work space, easy access and egress, and parking.  Both are too small for the current size of the community and the facilities will soon impact the ability to deliver services.
2. The Library and the Safety Center both help the City provide vital city services. The physical condition of the current Safety Center pushes it to the top of the priority list, but both public libraries and public safety are both crucial.   When your house is burning you need a firefighter and not a book about the Great Chicago Fire.  On the other hand, when you need to find a job, learn who to vote for, help your children learn, and many other questions, you need the Library.

3. The City Council must provide clear, committed leadership for major capital improvements and our 2010-2014 CIP should include both the Safety Center and the Public Library as equally important facilities which are scheduled in a reasonable and timely sequence.  Looking ahead, the community deserves to know how to budget for 1) a new Safety Center (one or two buildings), 2) an expanded library, and 3) a renewed school operating levy in 2013 (because we do think about the other entities which impose tax burdens).

4. Clear direction for action will enable the Council and staff to take the next steps of planning for these facilities, help make seeking grants and private donations more effective  (see the Carnegie Formula above), and help the community understand City plans and their effects.

5. Other questions:

• Referendum? I believe both these projects are needed;  I would like to see a referendum on both or neither, rather than playing them off each other.
• Can we afford anything (now)? I’ve been accused of not getting it by David Ludescher over on Locally Grown.   Despite my positive statements about both the Safety Center and the Library above, I think about the dollar impact on individuals and on businesses of Council decisions, not just the big ticket items.   The City is in a lousy place right now.  We’ve overbuilt in the residential area putting the tax burden on too few commercial/industrial taxpayers (and these properties pay higher rates while using fewer services).  We’ve deferred maintenance and capital spending so now we must improve facilities or they will fail.  The governor has balanced his budget by cutting ours; we’ve cut back on staff and services and may cut more.   Because I believe waiting will only raise the price – both because construction costs and interest rates will rise and because other capital needs are on the horizon, I am in favor of moving ahead now.

 

 

City attorney(s) on the agenda

There are only 2 items on the regular agenda for Monday, 11/2 and one is action on new city attorneys (the other is approving a transfer of funds to allow the HRA to purchase foreclosed townhomes to use as rental property).

I said I wouldn’t comment on this issue before the Council acted and I don’t want to.   However, now the issue has become a media mini-referendum on the personal merits of our current legal counsel with City Attorney Swanson pleading her case and/or Tim Morisette’s case in long letters to the Council, extensive coverage of the “not local” issue in the Northfield News, and the comments of local attorneys and others  suggesting that if the Council votes to accept the search committee’s recommendation of new city attorneys we will be traitors to Northfield, local professionals, and the Lampe Law firm in particular.   

Here’s my position: I fully support the recommendations of the Mayor and the search committee.

On the civil side, I believe retaining an attorney who specializes in municipal issues (at a competitive $$ rate) is a wise move.   Having an attorney who works with many cities means having someone who has seen issues in a variety of contexts, can offer a range of possible solutions, can suggest changes which might prove helpful and help the city troubleshoot its policies in a forward thinking way.

I’m looking for a city attorney who will help the Council think ahead and think strategically about issues. As we consider a second large annexation, review capital improvements and tax questions, consider how to structure our staff and our finances to create a sustainable city, and bring new land development regulations on-line there are quite a few significant legal choices to make.  I want an attorney who understands the bigger picture of how cities operate and can offer advice which lets us make wise policy choices.  I’m confident that Chris Hood will do this.

That Mr Hood’s firm, Flaherty & Hood, is also involved in lobbying is a plus, not a minus.  We struggle with how state law constrains how we do business from tax law to land use – having an attorney who is involved with state lawmakers, knows what issues are coming up, knows what lawmakers are involved, and can help us plan our own lobbying efforts (which the Council has identified as something we should do more) is a big benefit, not a drawback.

On the prosecutorial side, I believe Elliot Knetsch of Campbell Knutson offers a cost savings and brings much experience with relevant issues, can quickly earn any quirky local issues involved in practicing in the 3rd rather than 1st judicial district, and can be equally responsive to Northfield’s needs.   As a Council member, I’ll see less of the city prosecutor than our civil attorney, but I’m confident Mr. Knetsch will work effectively with the police department and other staff to prosecute violations of city law.

I met with both recommended attorneys and I am impressed with their understanding of Northfield, their interest in the job, the resources of their firms, and their desire to work with the Council and relevant City Staff.   Critics have offered statements but little evidence that changing attorneys will cost more and offer less; I think the opposite is true.

 

Chamber forum

Although other news sites said the Council “took some heat” and “mixed it up” at the Chamber of Commerce Wednesday morning, I’d rate the event as “very mild.”    No screaming, throwing, insulting, finger-pointing or other bad behavior took place, just a few tough questions (too few questions, if you ask me).   I’d boil down the concerns to 2 very legitimate concerns:

1. Money: The business community has been cutting budgets and jobs to try to survive in the down economy; tough choices are required.  The City, meanwhile, is raising its tax levy and thinking about building a new Safety Center and expanding the Library.    Mayor Rossing expressed her concern and frustration that the City realizes tax decisions weigh more heavily on commercial/industrial property owners due to a higher tax class rate and the added burden of a state property tax which residential property owners do not pay.   She’s right, of course, but this still doesn’t address the Chamber’s point that the City needs to cut costs and postpone spending because the money just isn’t there.

I’ll admit I’m struggling here, especially about our proposed capital projects.

On one hand, the City has put off capital improvements in the past so that we now find ourselves with several aging, cramped facilities which need repair or replacement.   We do not want the Safety Center, Library, City Hall, etc. to reach the point we reached with the outdoor pool which after years of patching (and thus years of knowing it was not sustainable)  simply failed and leaked thousands of gallons of water daily.   However, we also don’t want to make a decision like the outdoor pool replacement where a nice amenity, but not even close to an essential service  somehow took top priority and happened without consideration of other needs (and without a referendum).

On the other hand, the Chamber members are right, we don’t HAVE any money.  Can property owners bear the additional tax burden to BORROW the money?   As a homeowner, I don’t like to pay higher taxes, but I can.   Can our business properties afford these projects or will a new Safety Center kill off business?  If we waited two years and the economy recovered somewhat, would that be better? What other choices are there?

2. Development in Northfield: Why does it take so long and seem so difficult to get commercial projects reviewed, permitted and built in Northfield?  Certainly this question lurks as we struggle with our land development code, but those regulations – even if fabulous – won’t solve the problem.   And this complaint is not at all new – I’d love to hear from business people who’ve worked with Northfield and with other cities so they can help us understand what we’re not getting right.   I’d like to see the Council make efficient, predictable development review a very high priority and communicate this to the staff.  Look for more discussion of this topic as the land development code moves along – it’s a good time to raise this issue and make some progress.

Go read Pressville

Perhaps you’ve seen Pressville mentioned on Locally Grown, northfield.org and/or the Northfield News.   You can read all it about it on those pages.  I had fun attending a Pressville party on Thursday and talking to some of the students who are writing for Pressville.  If the future of journalism and blogging depended on these students, we could all relax.  They’re still learning, of course, so Griff’s little rant was at least premature, but it’s not whether they know how and when to link to other on-line media that caught my attention (besides, it’s tough to learn to write on the internet where everyone can see and comment on your progress).  I enjoyed their concern and conflict over journalistic ethics, good reporting and appropriate presentation – keep up the good thinking!   Thanks to Doug McGill and his students – I’m really looking forward to the next stories on Pressville.

Complete Streets study completed

Just a quick note that MnDOT has completed its Complete Streets study – all 136 pages (no, I haven’t read it all yet) of it are located here

Monday’s agenda and beyond

To infinity…and beyond! Alas, my horizon is much more limited; I’m only looking out to December 2009 with a few glimmers from 2010.

What is not on tomorrow’s agenda, but will be soon:

November 2: Council will act on the city attorney recommendations which have been generating much comment (but about which I shall have no comment until the November 2 meeting)

December: Budget and CIP decisions will have to be made.   The much discussed streetlight utility is not in the 2010 budget; if the Council decides to create the utility that would be a 2011 innovation.

What is on tomorrow’s agenda:

Consent agenda: since this part of the agenda has been under scrutiny lately, I’ll say that I don’t think anything on tomorrow’s consent agenda, shouldn’t be.   Disbursements, approve charitable gambling, award bids for the Riverside Trail connection (this might spark some comment out there, but I think the relevant policy decisions have been made already even if the total cost and route of this trail segment have caused concern), approve a proclamation for Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and purchase police vehicles.

Regular agenda: Only 2 items.  One is a motion authorizing the City Administrator to execute a “letter of intent” between the City and Jefferson Square townhomes’ developer which contemplates providing tax increment financing to Jefferson Square to support their applications to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for tax credits.   Jefferson Square has also received approval from the city recently for changes to their Planned Unit Development to allow construction of a clubhouse/community space for the townhomes; renovation to the homes is also part of that project.   This is one of those leverage situations – The City’s contribution helps Jefferson Square leverage additional state support to help keep this townhome development as affordable housing (as it has been since 1980) and also continue to improve and upgrade the property.  It’s a good deal.

The other item establishes 3 options in priority order in connection with the purchase of the MnDOT owned property at the corner of 2nd Street and Highway 3 – part of The Crossings project.  Priority 1 is to purchase the property at a price based on a value that splits the difference between MnDOT’s appraisal of $208,000 (which does not account for the contamination of the soil) and the City’s $54,000 appraisal or $131,000.  This doesn’t sound like a great deal, but it may be the best bet.   Other options would either involve “binding mediation” (I know what binding arbitration is, but I’m not sure about binding mediation) which has both time and money costs associated with it; the other option (the 3rd and lowest priority) would be to test the market and offer the property for sale on the open market which has time, uncertainty and probably some money costs.   Should certainty and expedience trump price fairness?

Then there’s the worksession: More budget presentations: HR, Community Development and the Insurance Fund.  And item 2. “CIP Discussion” which is probably code for “Safety Center again.”

“Maverickism” needed at City Hall?

As far as I can tell, “maverickism” was coined by or about Sarah Palin in the 2008 Presidential Campaign, but it showed up in the 10/5 this week’s Nation’s Cities Weekly for a Leadership Training Institute seminar being offered at the National League of Cities Congress of Cities in San Antonio in November.   Apparently, maverickism is required for “unhooking the straight jacket [sic] and unleashing leaders and their employees to engage in real talk about real innovation” which is “crucial to addressing today’s unprecedented challenges.”

Bah humbug, I say.   Today’s problems are not utterly unique and we would be much better off with leaders who were not let loose in city hall to be  innovative just to be innovative.  Rather, I’d like leaders who do their homework, understand the big picture of city government (and a little history wouldn’t be bad either) and could identify the relevant similarities and differences among situations, solutions, and issues.    Creativity?  Sure, it’s good to be able to see issues in new ways and to consider innovative solutions – but you still have to be able to tell whether new ideas might be effective (and cost effective) by being able to evaluate them relative to traditional answers, within the legal structure we have to use (or advocate to change), and based on sufficient data.   Sounds like there’s more homework to do, how dull and unmavericky.

What really rots my garters about seminars like this one is they make people think there is an easy way to get great results – just be mavericky and throw out the rule book, in this case  -  and that is almost never true and it might just be the antithesis of leadership.   So, we could get distracted by the next new slogan, but what we really need to do is keep working for good, sustainable solutions.