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.

Columbus Day worksession

Columbus as conquering hero...

Columbus isn’t much of a hero any more and Columbus Day isn’t much of a holiday.  So, the Council will be at work (agenda and packet) discussing:

Business Park “brief update” – this project gives me indigestion and may give me nightmares.  I have not (yet) heard the EDA or the Council discuss the full range of possible costs to the city, what incentives to companies might be offered to entice them to locate here, an assessment of the transportation issues…I don’t expect to get any Useful information tomorrow night, just a happy presentation about the Master Planning committee and the great things ahead.

Utility Rate Study update: Although storm water, waste water and just plain water are mentioned, the bulk of the materials in the packet suggests that the bulk of the discussion will center on the proposed streetlight utility.  The streetlight utility has received the most media attention (Northfield News here, Locally Grown here) as well as (non-positive) responses from Carleton and St Olaf.

I’m in favor of the streetlight utility, but I’m less thrilled with how we’ve reached this point.  If I unpack this one (I’m trying not to say “shed some light on it”), I find:

• Policy: Is it appropriate to shift funding of the streetlight network from the general fund to a utility?    Creating the utility would mean establishing a separate enterprise fund for for the maintenance  and upgrading of the network; the fund would receive the fee charged for street lighting which would appear on utility billing statements.    The criticism heard about creating a new fee is overrated.  Residents will be paying for streetlights regardless – shifting to utility billing means more transparency: you get to see what you’ll be paying on a monthly basis rather than having the cost rolled into the city’s tax levy.   The utility model gives the city one tool by which we can shift the extra burden on commercial taxpayers toward residential customers (although it is not clear that we will structure fees this way).  Finally, the utility would allow the city to spread the cost of street lighting over more users by allowing us to bill our property tax-exempt properties (hence the reaction from the colleges).  I will acknowledge the slippery slope problem: if we shift street lighting to utility billing, what will stop us from shifting, say, parks to this kind of funding?  Or other city services?  I’ll dodge that one for now.
• Operational choices: how, in administrative and practical terms, would the change take place – this is a staff job.
• Public relations: Even though, from the city’s perspective, a streetlight utility fee would be both more transparent and spread the cost over more customers, it should also be pretty obvious that itemizing the cost on utility bills will be a surprise to customers – it looks like a brand new fee as if the city is just starting to charge for street lighting.   It should be blindingly obvious our tax-exempt customers will find this an even bigger surprise and might even think the motivation for the fee is to find a way to extract money from the Colleges as a kind of punishment for not paying taxes.   For individual residents, the city should have been out in front of the Northfield News in explaining the shift – perhaps we need to issue press releases early on to avoid media surprises.  For the Colleges, we should have asked them to join the discussion early and often as we developed our policy.    I don’t think this means we allow Colleges to veto the policy if they don’t like it, but rather the city makes an intentional and deliberate effort to work with College representatives to discuss, inform, and get that buy-in we talk about so often.  I have yet to figure out how Council members can best help with this component – there are enough issues, that we tend to wait to be informed and that clearly isn’t sufficient.  All suggestions welcome.

More budget presentations: Liquor Operations, Motor Vehicles Fund, Finance Department, Debt Service Funds.

Safety Center, again

Before the Council asks you to pay for a new Safety Center, it seems only fair to let you know what you’ll be buying.  Trouble is, I don’t know.

Here are the options that have been discussed or mentioned:

Option 1: the Safety Center Task Force recommendation of June 22 is to build a new Safety Center of 47,500 square feet housing both the police and fire departments.  The Task Force further recommended two sites, both south of the current Safety Center along Highway 3 and “strongly encourage[d]” the Council to study the flood protection needed for the current site (presented to the Council @ the 8/31 work session) and “explore ideas” for reuse.

Option 2: the Minority Opinion from Task Force member Ray Cox (and a discussion over on Locally Grown about this)    Ignoring the problematic way in which Mr Cox chose to get his opinion inserted into the discussion, he recommended either reusing the current safety center for police only and building anew fire station (if financial and engineering data bear out his belief that this would be the lowest cost option) or

Option 2a: also from the Minority Report if the engineering and financial data don’t support number 2, to build separate police and fire stations on a new site.  Separating the two facilities would allow the city to better account for the fire costs for the rural fire association and allow each facility to expand to meet its own needs independently.  The City has been urged to consider minority opinion by both the Chamber of Commerce and NDDC.

Option 3: Leave the fire station at the current location and build a new police station.  The current site is centrally located which is more important for fire response time.  I’ve only heard rumors about this one.

Mayor Rossing asked at our last work session what other information we needed to be able to include the project in the CIP.  I need to know what project we are committing to build – which means the Council must pass a resolution indicating our choice. In order to get to that decision, I need to see cost comparisons and I need to know where proposed numbers come from.  There are quite a lot of numbers to think about (in no particular order):

• Land costs are not included in price estimates – what are estimated land costs?
• What standard was used for space recommendations?  I don’t need minutiae, I just want to know the source of the space and cost per square foot numbers and they are not pulled from the air.  Call me an information paranoid – I check footnotes and read cross-references because I fear someone may be trying to mislead me at any moment (or, another way, from the Moscow Rules: Assume nothing).
• What costs can be anticipated for reuse of the existing site for a purpose other than public safety?
• What other possible funding sources are there?  We’ve noted contributions from the rural fire association and the college – what kind of $$’s are we talking about?  Does our choice of location/combination have any bearing on these?  I’ve heard there are possible state sources…really?  I don’t generally support chasing grants unless there’s it’s for one of those ” shovel-ready” projects (which this one isn’t, yet)  – any possibilities here?

End game

October may seem a bit early for the end game, but the Council has two months (or about 4 meetings + 4 worksessions) to finalize the 2010 budget and the 2010-2014 CIP in addition to dealing with whatever routine business comes before the Council and not so routine issues like the Land Development Code.    The chess metaphor may not be completely apt as I’m not sure quite what winning looks like in local government terms or even if there are two obvious opponents.  However, we don’t have too many pieces left on the board to play with, we do need to think strategically, and I’ll be the first to admit that stupid sacrifices have been made along the way which limit our choices now.

On Monday, October 5 (get the agenda and packet here), we have a closed meeting @ 6:30 pm to consider the purchase/sale of the MNDoT owned property at the corner of Highway 3 and 2nd Street – part of The Crossings project and then @ 7:00 the public session begins, followed by a worksession devoted to budget/CIP issues.

You can read the packet yourselves (and you should), but here are a couple of questions I have -

Park Fund questions:

• On the consent agenda:  Item 6 “Approve Yaggy Colby contract amendment for Mill Towns Trail contract” – the contract amendment in question is to pay for “construction observation” for the Peggy Prowe bridge and other projects which City staff are either not certified to provide (the bridge) or not able to provide due to staffing changes (the other projects).  This need to amend the contract doesn’t bother me, but the $190, 456.65 cost of the contract changes is to be paid from the park fund…
• On the regular agenda: Item 8 covers requests from Highland Bank related to the Crossings project including having the City pick up $100,000 (from the Park Fund or Capital Reserve Fund) to pay for riverfront improvements including extending the river walk north.  The city could be reimbursed for these expenditures somewhere down the line depending on progress made on part 2 of the project…
• What’s the impact on the Park Fund? We’ve shifted $125,000 from the property tax levy from the Park Fund to the General Fund to help with the current budget shortfalls created by the LGA unallotment .   What’s left?  What’s the long term impact to the Park Fund if we spend this money now?
• Where’s the policy discussion? Just call me Jiminy Cricket, the Council’s policy conscience, but shouldn’t we at least ask whether these proposed expenditures are in line with our overall park plans and policies?
• Carts before horses: oh, and we’re talking about park priorities on our CIP discussion during the worksession following the regular meeting.  This is the result of my previous chirping about park policy in relation to the skateboard park and I’m glad we’ll be having the discussion, but it will be somewhat more difficult if we’ve just acted to spend $300,000 of park fund money.

Worksession – the money talk continues.  Two departments (IT and the HRA) will present their budget proposals and the CIP discussion continues including the aforementioned park priority discussion and prioritizing the big projects – that would be the Safety Center and the Library.

Retrofitting suburban development

Mableton, GA now

In this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, had a land use article which  caught my eye.   Suburban style development with single family homes on relatively large lots – offering lots space privacy and home maintenance chores, but not much connectivity and community – is not so great for an aging population.  In order to help folks “age in place” a few places are attempting to rebuild suburbia into walkable, compact, dense communities where people can fulfill basic shopping and social needs on foot, live near people of all ages, and make public transit more effective.

Northfield already has some of the good stuff the Atlanta area, for one, is trying to recreate.  Ensuring that our downtown and surrounding neighborhoods remain vital and thriving will help make Northfield a place where we, too, can age in place.  As we look to rewrite land development codes, how can we think about making our less accessible, less dense areas work better?  It’ll take more than zoning, though, but also money, vision, and effort.

More work – Capital improvement discussion starts

Northfield’s finance director, Kathleen McBride, deserves a lot of credit for dragging the Council toward a capital improvement planning process where projects are assessed rationally, scheduled sensibly, and funding sources are identified…instead of listing possible projects with largely fictional “placeholder” dollar amounts and hoping for the best.  The 2010-2014 CIP discussion begins Monday at the Council worksession.

By now, Northfield folks should know that the 1st big ticket item is the Safety Center. See the official city information here, Northfield News here (the most recent story), Locally Grown here.   The draft CIP numbers for the project are $1,020,000 in 2010 and $9,180,000 in 2011 for design and construction (exclusive of land acquisition) of a new joint police/fire Safety Center as per the Task Force recommendation.  In the alternative, $3,200,000 is included for renovation if a new facility is not constructed.    This is one of those molar-grinding sort of issues.  On one hand, public safety is important – life and death important sometimes – so I would like to make the choice which leads to the most effective functioning of our police and fire departments (and also cost effective functioning).  On the other hand, the Council has been bombarded with numbers, opinions, and paper but I can’t tell where the numbers come from (and they are disputed by various people), can’t sort out the opinions (because I’m no expert on public safety or construction costs) and usually can’t find the paper I might need because there is so much of it.

Beyond the question of what should be built and where, the Council also needs to decide whether to put this issue to a referendum so you voters can weigh in on the project and whether you want your taxes to increase to pay for it.   I’m cautiously anti-referendum…while asking voters’ consent to tax increases has common sense appeal, I think elected representatives are elected to make these decisions and (one hopes) have been given and have understood the information, heard and analyzed public opinion, considered the fiscal state of the city and then can act for the common good.  I’ll plead guilty to all charges of idealism with the intent to commit rational decision-making.

The 2nd major facility improvement being considered is the Library expansion. I’m not neutral about the Library – I think the Northfield Public Library is one of the City’s real assets.  Despite being cramped (just try to shoe-horn yourself into the children’s area on a Saturday), cutting their budget and staff, having Rice County lower its funding, and reducing hours (the Library won’t be open Sunday afternoon for budget reasons) the Library continues to post record circulation and usage numbers.   But that’s not all:

• Children’s programming has been so successful it exceeds the occupancy limits of the Library meeting room
• Booker the Book Bus takes the Library out to the community
• the Library has added more job search and career resources to meet needs in tough times
• more Spanish language materials have been added to serve our Latino residents
• the active Friends of the Library raises money to support library programs
• the Library Board has been working for at least 5 years planning for expansion (see the FAQ and all the long range planning documents), gathering public input, educating the City Council, collaborating with the NDDC and EDA to consider how a larger library downtown can also be a catalyst for adding parking and revitalizing the north end of Division Street.

Indeed, something like the Library’s intentional, detailed, collaborative planning process (and public education about its planning process) could have been helpful with the Safety Center, although I’m not sure how this might have worked. Unlike public safety, the Library has had the benefit of strong leadership on the Library Board aided by skilled Board members who have done the networking and educating – a good example of highly effective citizen board.   And the Library is a facility which many of us visit and use often.

The Library expansion bottom line from the draft CIP is $10,000,000 (again exclusive of land acquisition) with $900,000 pencilled in for 2012 and the remainder in 2013.   The Library Board has also issued an RFP for a fund-raising feasibility consultant to help determine how much private funding might be reasonable to expect for the project.

Beyond these two big projects, the CIP also deals with the ongoing investment Northfield must make in its infrastructure: streets, sewer, water, sidewalks, etc.    Some proposed projects depend on grants (such as pedestrian improvements to Highways 3 & 19) while others are part of the City’s on-going maintenance and repair.

Finally, there’s the “parking lot” which has nothing to do with constructing new parking (although $50,000 is included for 2010 for a study for a possible downtown parking ramp).  This is where possible projects without identified funding sources are parked – broadband, Mill Towns trail repair, a couple of County road projects.

Back to work on the Council: Fees and taxes

I didn’t exactly stop working on City issues over the summer, but my interest in blogging about them evaporated entirely.  Why sit at a computer when I could tend my green roof (planted some little bluestem grass up there today), run with my dog, pick tomatoes, go to the State Fair or do just about anything else outside?

But now it’s September, school has started, the leaves are turning, the preliminary tax levies has been set so I’m back…

By law, the Council must approve the preliminary tax levy by September 15 – that means the Council must act at its regular meeting Monday night.  Given the governor’s unallotment tactics and the recession’s impact, the City needs to make up the shortfall by cutting spending (and services) and/or raising taxes and fees.

So far, we’ve been doing pretty traditional budgeting starting with last year’s numbers and reducing spending across the board by freezing wage and step increases (See the News), cutting staff by attrition and layoffs, asking each department to cut 10% and now figuring how much revenue we can raise via the general fund levy, HRA and EDA levies.  Our direction to staff was to attempt to keep the tax dollar amount paid by homeowners the same as last year.  This recommendation isn’t perfect – as the News reported, the impact is greater for commercial property owners (who are also burdened by a state property tax which residential property owners do not pay).

We’ve also raised some fees and added a few new ones (such as a $10 fee for proctoring exams at the Library and $200 for a 2 AM closing liquor license).  And, we are considering created a street light utility which has attracted a bit of attention in the local media here and here.    We already have water, stormwater, garbage and wastewater utilities – by creating a utility, we add an itemized fee on monthly utility bills for each of these services which goes to a separate fund for maintaining and improving that service’s infrastructure.  The advantage is to remove street light funding from the General Fund and be able to calibrate utility fees based on usage and infrastructure needs more accurately rather than simply sweeping this cost into the General Fund and into the tax levy.

An interesting discussion bubbled up at last Monday’s meeting in the context of the HRA levy.  Some Councilors were interested in raising the HRA levy beyond the requested amount and up to the allowed levy limit on the theory that, in the current economy, the City should help meet basic needs like housing.  The alternate argument was that we should stick to our plan of holding the levy to last year’s dollar amount and respect the City wide budget cutting that has been necessary, rather than trying to address this social need in particular.    More on all these another time along with some thoughts about budgeting for outcomes.

Building a green roof – part 2

Sedum before planting

I blogged about the construction of our green roof leading up to the great mud-slinging event, but now the green roof is actually green and growing.

Through some contacts at the Minnesota Green Roofs Council (you can go see their “portable” green roof at the State Fair – it’s on  a small trailer), I’d heard that Dragonfly Gardens in Amery, Wisonsin was a great source for green roof plants and advice – it was.    They stocked a huge variety of sedum (stonecrop) and in addition to 8 flats of assorted sedum from Dragonfly, I supplemented with some red bee balm (monarda) from my garden and some bright yellow yarrow (achillea) from Knecht’s Nursery. Justin rigged up an irrigation system.   Watering the roof seems a bit odd, but we’re happy to report that the design of roof and scuppers works perfectly, the roof drains appropriately and the plants are getting established.

Planted - looking NW

The other side - SE

Land development code update

Lately, I’ve been attending many meetings about the land development code update – so many meetings, in fact, that blogging about land development is about the last thing I feel like doing when I get home (especially when my green roof project is much more fun).   Just in case you haven’t read it yet, the land development code draft is available on the city website and the “satellite” website for the land development code and YOUR comments is up and running and you can find the  the draft zoning map and notices of meetings and updates on the process there, too.

According to the timeline the City Council adopted, city boards and commissions were to submit their comments to the Planning Commission by July 31...and it’s August now and the EQC, EDA, HRA, and PRAB have all been busy (the EDA had a special meeting just today) although I don’t know if official comments have been turned in.    The Planning Commission has also been reviewing the draft regulations and, as they did with the Comp Plan, holding extra work sessions, attending other board and commission meetings and generally doing more than what Planning Commission members are expected to do.  If you see a PC member, give him or her a pat on the back or better yet.

But let’s take a step back and remember what we’re supposed to be doing.

1. Comprehensive Plan: The Council adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in 2008 after a big kickoff at the Armory and a couple years of work by the Planning Commission.  Northfield’s Charter requires that we adopt no ordinance in conflict with the Comp Plan – so that’s one indication of the importance this plan should have.   The Comp Plan’s main role is to capture the city’s vision for its future in order to guide the writing of our “official controls.”   In other words, the Comp Plan is not just a pretty picture of Northfield, but is the foundation for what we regulate and how we do it so we actually get development which matches the pretty picture.  The Comp Plan guides, the land development code regulates.  So, any attempt to draft land use ordinances not only cannot (by Charter) conflict with the Comp Plan, but should also result in regulations which make the Comp Plan happen.

2. Comp plan in brief: The best summary of the Comp Plan is the 12 Land Use principles which guided the writing of the Plan.   You can read the Goals, objectives and strategies which came from these principles in the Implementation chapter of the Comp Plan.

3. From plan to ordinance: Unfortunately, the draft has homed in on “enhance small town character” -a statement so general as to be almost vacuous from a regulatory point of view-and to use the example of our commercial zoning districts-has flattened “enhance small town character” into “make more stuff look like Division Street” by expanding regulations which currently apply only in the heart of downtown to west of Highway 3 and south.    The draft regulations do not yet do much to consider the other principles which seek to prioritize infill and redevelopment, make development more sustainable/environmentally conscious, and create better pedestrian and bicycle connections (and to do all this in ways which are achievable and sustainable in economic terms).

4. The problem as I see it: I have heard, repeatedly, that this code is supposed to tell developers “what Northfield wants.”     So far, though, the draft regulations make pretty timid statements about what “Northfield wants.”   When I read some cities’ regulations, it really is clear what that city wants (see Burlington, VT or the Arlington, VA Columbia Pike Revitalization Project if you like to read land use codes).  I’m proud of the Council for including broad input from city boards and commissions, the NDDC, local builders, and the Chamber as part of the review process despite city staff’s recommendation not to do so.  These groups are asking invaluable questions, making excellent suggestions  and helping frame “what Northfield wants.”   The Planning Commission has much work to do this Fall and I’m counting on them to bring the draft code much closer to stating what Northfield wants as well as flag those policy issues which the Council needs to decide.

6. So, what next? You can get a peek at the regulations on August 18 @ the Armory.    You can always watch the sausage being made at any of the meetings listed on the land development code website.  Or comment here or on the land development code website.