League of Women Voters

Jane McWilliams, LWV Observer

Councilor Kris Vohs was absent.

The printed agenda indicated specific times for each item, and then noted that “Times are approximate.” In fact, the meeting lasted a little more than 3 hours, rather than a little under 2 as approximated. The lengthiest discussion was the financing of the library, police and fire projects.

Land Development Code: Discussion of two draft chapters of the Code, along with a completion timeline led off the meeting.  The chapter on administration received the most attention, especially the recommended town architect. This position would be on a contract basis to serve on the Development Review Committee to assist in enforcement of architectural standards of the LDC.

Transit related items: Public Works Operations Engineer Brian Erickson reviewed current transit operation and funding. He proposed two changes in the program:  increasing the fee to offset operating expenses, and establishing a “route deviation system” which would provide more flexibility and potentially increase participation.  Currently, the city depends heavily on the $365,980  (80% of costs) Minnesota Department of Transportation subsidy for operating and capital expenses for the program. The city’s portion is $66,000.  The fare and hoped for utilization increases will help meet increasing costs. (There was no total cost reported.)

Library, Police and Fire Project Financing: Finance Director Kathleen McBride provided three options which she anticipated would be reviewed one last time before a final decision is requested:

Referendum- Police & Fire Facilities alone;

Referendum – Police, Fire and Library’

Capital Improvement Bonds

She noted that if there were a consensus on the referendum option, there should be a decision on whether to include the library expansion project, or to hold a separate referendum two years from now.  She explained the requirements of the CIP bonds: A council approved CIP 5 year plan containing projects for which CIP bonds would be used. This could include both the safety facility and library expansion. There is a public hearing, after which a 2/3-majority council vote threshold is required for approval. There is the possibility of a reverse referendum should sufficient signature requiring this be assembled. She said a hearing has already been scheduled in anticipation of this option (June 15th) and an ad must be published shortly. She wanted guidance on this matter. (Presumably, McBride provided these details for this option at this time because if the council intends to take this route, planning needs to begin immediately.)

The council discussion got off track immediately when Councilor Jon Denison’s contributions to the Design Team meeting in the afternoon came up for discussion. That group was appointed to, “be intimately involved in site and building design issues to ensure that the new facilities will meet the needs of the community”. (From the project web page: http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/assets/p/projects/SafetyCenter_2010/designteam.html )

Denison had served on the original task force studying the safety facilities and has taken a strong stand in favor of their recommendation:  a combined facility in a new location.

Councilor Erica Zweifel expressed concern that Denison was not representing the consensus of the council (that a new facility for the police and a replacement or remodeling of the current fire facility be pursued). In fact, the committee meeting started out with discussion of a combined site. Mayor Mary Rossing noted that people on committees have biases and the council can’t prevent their participation.  Councilor Betsey Buckheit shared Zweifel’s concern and said the question as to how the council’s plan can work needs to be pursued.  “Denision needs to think outside the boundaries of his own opinion, and ask all the questions.”  (It was evident from the discussion, that there is not a consensus on the role of council representatives on these two committees.)

McBride brought the discussion back to the financing question. She provided a chart showing the tax impact of a major safety facility project:   http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/assets/p/Packet166.pdf #3. Two scenarios, one reflecting a cost of $11 million, the upper limit of recent discussions with the architect, and one $8.5 (the original cap) show the effect on various types and values of properties. Councilor Jim Pokorney expressed concern about asking the public for bond payments at the same time the council is facing potentially severe cuts in 2011 budget “We need the projects. And yet while reducing costs on the one hand, we’re going to add to them.”  McBride responded that Northfield’s debt levy is very low compared to other cities which have already been through major capital projects. The last time the city added to the debt was in 1998 (for the NCRC). Rossing said that if we don’t move in this direction, we’d need to spend $3.5 to bring the current facility up to code. In 2010, the NCRC bonds will be paid off, reducing the burden.

Councilor Buckheit said she hears constituent concerns that the library is lost in the discussion. Pokorney noted a library referendum following the safety facility funding would have a hard time passing.  McBride added it would be hard to know what number to put for the library in a referendum. She reported that a local option sales tax, as well as private fundraising for the library are under discussion.

Three councilors expressed support for going with the CIP bond method, Pownell, Buckheit and Zweifel) saying they hear that people want the council to make the decision. Rossing disagreed, saying she thinks the council should go to the voters in the fall. Zweifel said that if they go to a referendum, both projects should be on the ballot. Rossing said she would not recommend putting both the library and safety facilities on the ballot, because it would fail. She doesn’t fear coming back to the voters later to see if a library is wanted. All agreed that public information is the key to developing support for the project funded by CIP bonds, and to head off a reverse referendum, which would require putting the financing issue on the November ballot.

McBride said she would prepare information for a CIP bond for the safety facilities. In response to an email request as to what would be included, McBride replied the information would be available once she prepares it for the council.

The city has created a place on the web site where one can find information about the facilities planning process.   http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/assets/p/projects/SafetyCenter_2010/index.html If interested, one can receive “email notification of public events related to the project”. (Please note  the information concerning the Steering Committee and the Design Team.  These will correct the information in my Tuesday, May 4, 2010 blog post.)