Sketch of the proposed project for 25 Bridge Square

The HPC meetings are not usually very exciting for me as the Council liaison to that body.  Maybe this is because I’m not very enthusiastic about preservation for its own sake.  I don’t like demolishing interesting old buildings randomly mostly because some older architecture has a richness of design and ornament that newer construction can’t match (compare the Central Block and Target, for instance).  I don’t care just because it’s old, though, and I’d like to encourage creative reuse of old buildings, rather than simply preserving them.   So now you know my stance on preservation.

Thursday, the HPC considers several actions regarding the proposed project for the Community Resource Bank building on Bridge Square.  Get the agenda and packet from the City website.

First, the HPC is asked to approve the demolition of the Aldsworth Building which abuts the bank building.  Apparently, the Aldsworth and Community Bank buildings were “merged into one building” at some point in the past so that they share a common elevator as various access points.   Although the HPC is asked to approve the demolition before considering the project as a whole, I’d suggest this is backward.  Unless the Aldsworth Building must be preserved, period (and you can guess that I think this is not the case), then its fate should depend on whether the larger project is appropriate and/or desirable – a much tougher question.

I think it’s important that you know what can and can’t be done by the City to stop the project or change its trajectory. This project meets the current zoning code as a permitted use – no hearing, Planning Commission or Council action is needed.  The HPC must issue a “Certificate of Appropriateness” which only controls the appearance of the project, not whether it is built or not.   The HPC will review the plans to determine whether the project “conforms to” the Downtown Preservation Design Guidelines. Read the staff report and  the Design Guidelines, then come to the meeting on Thursday, 11/19, 4:30 pm in the Council Chambers if you want to know about the design review.

The big issues for this project will not be answered at the HPC, however.  They are (so far in my thinking, anyway)

#1.  Incentives: The Council will get to weigh in if the developer asks for any incentives such as creating a TIF district.  If this happens, we’ll need to decide whether this is the kind of development which is desirable enough to support in this way.  I say: Maybe.   I like seeing investment in the downtown and I especially like this project’s thoughtful attention to its backside and relation to the river and Riverwalk.  It could enhance downtown in several ways.  On the other hand, if this office condo project just sucks tenants from other downtown office buildings rather than bringing in new businesses, then it becomes less worthwhile.

#2. Parking: Development in the C-1 district does not require that the developer provide any parking.  This is, arguably, not wise.   We could adopt the Holland, MI example of a parking assessment on downtown property owners to pay for shared parking…or this could be seen as just one more straw to break the commercial property owner’s back with taxes and fees.  Parking is an issue with the Library and the situation won’t improve if we increase the intensity of development in downtown and take out a small parking lot (the one next to the Community Bank building).  There is no established process for tackling the parking issue – we’ll have to craft one if we feel it’s important.  I hope the NDDC and Chamber weigh in on this one since downtown parking is a long-standing issue and the land development code is under development and could reflect the outcome of decision-making here.

After quite a few worksessions about the Safety Center and the Library and whether, when, where,  and how we will replace or expand these facilities, it looks like the Council will finally take the first bit of action on Monday (Agenda, packet available on the City website, as always).

Although the Northfield News headline proclaimed the Council had “stalled,“  we are moving ahead with 4 proposed motions.

• #1. Confirmation of the need to replace the Safety Center and/or expand Library to meet the community needs for the next 20 years
• #2. Finalize discussions on the preliminary scope of each project.
• #3. Identify the year in which the construction of the project(s) would be scheduled to commence
• #4. Identify a preliminary not to exceed total cost for each project.

I suspect I’ll be up way past my bedtime on Monday.

#1 is clear to me – we do need to improve both these facilities. #2-#4 require placing our bets carefully – but any action will be speculating on a handful of factors which I don’t think any Council member fully grasps (I know I don’t).

#2: Scope Part of my problem with the Safety Center process is that I don’t know who to believe.  I can put your money on the Task Force Recommendation or the minority report or some other option, but I’ll be betting on  cost estimates, betting on the value of keeping the police or fire at the current location (and the value of reusing a building or not), betting on the costs and/or benefits of a combined police/fire facility (or separating the two), and betting on the cost savings of acting now vs. acting later.   Put them all together and you get to rely on 7 people’s gut feelings on the weight and value of these factors.    Do you trust us?

The Library decision-making process has been clearer and I have been impressed with the Library’s information gathering and decision-making.   I trust their numbers and their conclusions, but I have different questions here.   I want the public safety facility or facilities to be efficient and help our people do the most effective job possible which can be measured in response times, vehicles, crime statistics and other ready data.  I don’t plan on spending much time at a police or fire facility and hope I don’t need the immediate services of either department.  But the Library is a place where the community gathers, it is an integral part of our historic downtown, and it serves  long term, less immediately quantifiable values of literacy, democracy, education, economic development, and community-building.

We hear the term “Taj Mahal” a lot – as in “we don’t want to pay for a “Taj Mahal” of a Library – this is true in several ways.  The Taj Mahal is a mausoleum, a tomb, and I would like our Library to be an active, lively, participatory place – not a repository of dead stuff.  I don’t want our Library to take 20 years to build (the Taj Mahal was begun around 1632 and completed about 1653).  And, of course, I think our budget does not allow for so opulent a design.   However, I would like our Library to be an attractive and appropriate facility Northfield residents will like to visit often (and then spend more time and money downtown), which they will support through tax dollars and charitable donations, and which will anchor the north end of Division Street.  Parking and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access are critical to meet these goals.   What’s the best facility for the lowest price which best achieves these goals?

So, where am I on the scope issue? For the Safety Center, I’m straddling Options B and C which both call for the reuse of the existing facility and building a new facility for the department NOT staying at the current site.  Option B keeps the police at the current site; Option C keeps the fire department in place.   I’m betting on lower land costs (and less land not paying property taxes) and perhaps some cost savings in construction.  Separating the facilities has some costs, but we can tailor the facilities to meet the needs of the department housed and down the road it means we can expand and remodel each separately to meet the changing needs of each service.   For the Library, I’d like to see the most cost effective design and most energetic fund-raising, but I support moving forward on the current site and integrating parking into the design.

#3.  When?  Roll the dice. It’s going to cost money, lots of money, your money.  Rhonda Pownell often cites current low construction costs as a reason to move forward quickly – OK, that pushes us toward starting one project as soon as we can, but doesn’t help much with the other(s).   Others say the economy is still shaky and we should wait until it recovers before doing anything.   I’m for establishing a timeline which stages the projects appropriately (whatever that means) and then marching forward.  There’s never going to be a good time and we’ve deferred too long already and there are other facilities waiting to fail.

#4. Not to exceed cost? Roll the dice again.   Take the estimates we’ve received and and look for opportunities to save through good design and wise construction choices.    Take the estimates and decide how much we’re willing to ask you to pay per year.   We have to rely on your input about what you value and what you are/aren’t willing to pay and the numbers we get from staff.

Of course, we can decide to do both projects (or all three depending on how you count), one, or none.  Watch the meeting streamed live on KYMN.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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