League of Women Voters

Jane McWilliams, LWV Observer

Councilor Erica Zweifel was absent.

Once again, the council took up the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan, with the focus being on the safety center and the library. The stated goal was to “clarify a direction on the facility projects and expenditures that can be incorporated into the 2010-2014 CIP” and to “provide direction on the timing, financing and scope of these projects.”  Mayor Mary Rossing said they would spend 15 minutes discussing the library in preparation for a motion to be presented next week.  Again, in this observer’s view, the council didn’t come to clear conclusions about many of the discussion points outlined in the City Administrator’s memo.

The memo listed 3 discussion points for the library expansion, the first being to:  recognize and reconfirm the project is needed in the community. In a note to the council, Councilor Zweifel said she sees the library as a core service and that its expansion should be part of the CIP. Councilor Jon Denision said he felt the Safety Center “is direly needed” and that the community wouldn’t accept fitting both it and the library in a 5-year plan. Councilor Betsey Buckheit said the facility has reached its limit and that programming was “spilling out.” Councilor Kris Vohs said parking was needed.

Whether to expand the library at its current site was the next topic. Councilor Denison led off the conversation by referring to the Gleason family offer of land on Highway 3 South, and asked if the city could pass up this offer which would save the city a million dollars. He said that the present library location presents problems to families because of parking constraints – making it necessary for them to drop their children off and not accompany them. Most librarians believe in one-story buildings. He seemed unaware of the library board’s analysis of and recommendations on location and design. Library Director Lynne Young noted that they had looked at other properties, but that the emphasis was on keeping the library downtown because people wanted this.  Councilor Jim Pokorney favors the current location and hopes the new library has an expanded community function, fostering meetings and gatherings. Councilor Buckheit reminded the council that the library board studied this and concluded, based on patrons' preferences, that the library should stay downtown.

Then the conversation drifted to details about the library design, in response to the third point:  scope of the project “which will be reflected in the cost of the project.”  Councilor Denison mentioned concern about parking, Director Young noted that there is the possibility of either underground or above ground parking. Councilor Buckheit added that the board has been working with the NDDC about parking.  She said the city should calculate the number of parking spots needed for the library, include it in the base cost, and that additional spaces could be achieved in collaboration with other groups.  Mayor Rossing expressed concern about meeting rooms, and opposed a coffee  shop mentioned in the plan. Director Young agreed with her about the coffee shop, and explained the kind of meeting rooms needed, ways the board has envisioned providing that kind of space, including the possibility of collaboration with other groups.

Mayor Rossing called attention to the likelihood that expansion  will increase cost of operation.  Director Young replied that this has been a major part of the conversation. That cost, plus of the expansion of the building as well as the cost of the yet to be defined safety center project took up the balance of the meeting.

Mayor Rossing was not comfortable with the $10 million cost of each project. She suggested  “a work group of neutral people who have expertise” look at both plans, go through them line by line, “interview the library folks and the safety center advocates . . . really asking them to slice and dice them.  We need people at a different level.” Councilor Pokorney wondered who the people would be. Councilor Rhonda Pownell suggested that they go back to the library board and the safety center task force and ask them to scale back the projects to fit within a certain cost. City Administrator Joel Walinski added the council could give them a number they could “shoot at.”

Just what is included in the safety center project and what possible support the city would have from the rural fire departments was unclear to the council. Mayor Rossing reminded them that there was at least a majority agreement for stand alone fire department in current building and that the police facility would be at another site. Councilor Denison asked whether they would tell the task force that they have rejected their recommendation and Councilor Pownell wondered whether they should go back to the task force for an analysis of the Gleason property. There was no clear consensus as to who would suggest the cost reductions for each facility.

Just what the cost cap should be on each project also seemed unclear. Council Buckheit suggested that they be given a range of options.  Councilor Pokorney suggested $8 million for each project. He’d like to see the cash flow on bonding as well. He suggested that the police station come first, the library second, and the fire station third, and the cost of the safety facilities be divided, $4 million each. There was no response to his suggestion.

Discussion of the timing of the projects seemed inconclusive. Jon Denison said the longer the council talks the more it would cost. Councilor Pownell said that while it might cost less to build now, the taxpayers might be more able to pay later when the economy improves. Councilor Kris Vohs noted that construction may not start while prices are still low and that we need to phase the building projects. When he added that he doesn’t need a referendum, there was no response. (To the knowledge of this observer, the council has not yet taken up the matter of whether to go for a referendum. The underlying assumption appears to be there will be one and it will be in May.)

In the Administrator’s memo, three proposed “next steps for including of these projects in the 2010 – 2014 CIP" were:

* Project scope and cost clarifying review.

* The scheduling of the facilities projects.

*  The timing of imposing a tax burden, implication of a referendum.

As with the other discussion points, while the council touched on these matters, there was no apparent consensus. It will be interesting to see what the staff will recommend. The council will meet next on November 16.

The earlier part of the meeting concerned the utility rate study, and 2010 budget presentations. Proposed changes in rates for water, wastewater and storm water were presented, and there was a discussion of what kind of reserve is necessary in each fund for anticipated capital expenses and cash flow.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20.