Observer Report: Northfield City Council, 1/6/26

Open Public Comment

• No one presented for open comments

Presentations

• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Poster Winners
  • Theme “stormwater heroes”, open to students grade 2-5, 170 submissions
  • Winning posters to be displayed in City Hall

Consent Agenda

• Councilmember (CM) Brad Ness asked for clarification about payments for disbursements

Public Hearings and Related Actions

• New Liquor License for Northfield Ballroom Inc.
  • No information of concern discovered in background research of business
  • Realtor spoke on behalf of the new owners, citing their experience in entertainment and their excitement to serve Northfield
  • Sokup moved to approve license, Ness seconded
• Street Reconstruction and Overlay Plan
  • Staff presented on the plan, building off of budget and capital reconstruction plans
  • provides the council the ability to authorize debt for street reconstruction and overlay projects
  • 47558 statue allows the council to authorize debt without a referendum process
    • up to a limited amount of debt
    • public hearing and 30-day petition process required
  • Proposed 5-year plan includes all of the adopted plans approved by CC in Dec.
    • bonding authority is only being requested for 2026 projects
    • the plan includes all future projects (required by statue to propose a 5-year plan), but approvals for 2027-2030 projects will be subject to CC approval in the future
    • estimated $8.3 million, only $4.7 million of funding from bonds with the remainder to be funded by other cash sources
    • 30-day petition period would end on Feb. 5^th
  • Public comments
    • none
  • Council comments
    • CM Ness: The statutory limit was mentioned, is the $4.7 million that limit?
      • Admin. Martig: The limit is based on the wealth of the city residents, and is about $69 million, although the city already does have some debt, there is still about $20 million remaining
    • CM Beumer: were there any previous bonds satisfied/paid off this year?
      • Admin. Martig: The levies ratified are stagnant, nothing falling off this year, but there will be moving forward under future considerations.
  • CM Beumer moved resolution, Holmes seconded
  • Council discussion – none; no opposition, motion carried

Reports from the Mayor and Councilmembers

• CM Holmes
  • planning commission meeting, Holmes was out of town but read meeting notes
  • one item was park dedication fees, staff recommendation was to increase the fee for developments
  • land development code is to be updated soon, but as it is in process, this presents a funding resource
  • public hearing will be Feb. 19^th, first reading in March
• CM Dahlen
  • confirmed that a mini pumper was purchased on the day of the meeting, good move to update fire service
• CM Beumer
  • nothing to report
• CM Sokup
  • forgot to report about ECC meetings in Nov. and Dec.
  • largely taken up by 2026 work plan and what it would consist of; 2025 plan largely finished
  • looking at zoning code rewrite and making sure management plan has teeth when code gets rewritten
  • closed HRA (?) meeting in the beginning of Dec.
  • Millstown trail meeting
    • Dakota county person, county engineer, is working with another person and they are hopeful for the underpass section in 2026
• CM Peterson White
  • Hospital Board – new relationship with the Alina clinic; exciting news for publicly owned healthcare
• CM Ness
  • nothing
• Mayor Zweifel
  • Sokup will be attending Youth Mayor’s Council

Regular Agenda

• Consideration of Election of President Pro Tem
  • Ness can’t remember if it is a nomination or consideration
  • Ness nominates Beumer for the position, Dahlen seconds
  • Peterson White recognizes willingness and expresses gratitude
  • none opposed
• Consideration of Resolution approving sponsorship of the MnDOT transportation grant application (presented by David Bennett, head of Public Works)
  • Two part process for resolution and maintenance resolution if this is passed
  • Lincoln parkway area
    • the revised access median drive is still there – approved in quarter analysis
    • revised roadway section in front of Greenvale Elementary
    • looking at adding a left turn lane at NCEC
    • original corridor had a bike path and separate sidewalk, looking to combine them in 10 ft corridor
    • again creating a shared footpath on the west side and east side of Lincoln parkway
    • looking to remove curve and gutter on Spring Street and eliminate parking and curb, allowing for snow area and footpath
  • Grant application for the funding year 2030
  • Back in Nov. heard about interest in grant
    • in original Lincoln parkway study, heard interest about the shared path – this tries to address that
  • Mayor Zweifel: Does this include rapid flashing beacon at Lincoln street
    • Bennett: Currently the plan does not, but that could be considered as part of submittal.
  • CM Holmes: If we want to include that, do we need to include that in the motion tonight or would it need to be added later?
    • Bennett: Thinking about the system as a whole, crossing guards are there, so is there enough foot traffic when crossing guards are not present to justify the cost of the light – about 60k cost estimated before.
  • Mayor Zweifel: I would be more comfortable if it was in the resolution tonight
  • CM Holmes: Does final say need to be tonight?
    • Bennett: We can include it in the funding application.
  • No public comments
  • CM Ness: Clarification, rapid flash would be at the intersection of Lindon and Lincoln parkway, or spring street?
    • Lincoln
    • CM Ness: where does it change? at Dresden?
  • CM Ness motions for revised resolution adding rapid flashing
    • CM Ness: This project has been a long-time coming, have done studies on traffic and pedestrians, met with school officials and others involved, this is the result of many prior meetings, so thanks for support.
    •  CM Holmes: Thanks to staff, especially for adding revised additions.
  • CM Ness: A question for staff. I have a  video from Red Wing for one crossing with red lights when pedestrians cross instead of flashing lights. I investigated ir and every car stopped (except one school bus who only missed by two blinks) whereas I know some vehicles do not stop at yellow flashing lights.
  • Mayor Zweifel: I have also heard from constituents about the success of the Red Wing system.
  • all approved, motion carried
• Maintenance responsibility for the proposed project
  • Mayor Zweifel: Will the multiuse trail make snow removal easier/harder?
    • Bennett: Possibly, if there are property owners that are slow, it could be harder.
  • CM Ness moved
  • all approved, motion carried
• Resolution for approving plans and specifications for the spring creek road reconstruction (presented by David Bennett, Director of Public Works)
  • Final plans have been presented and looking for approval so it can go up to bid
  • Project is a reconstruction on spring creek road from count to Woodley
  • Adding high visibility crosswalk markings and prewarning signs, adding lighting to intersection, and dynamic feedback will be added as speeds from rural side are higher then posted limit, and rapid rectangular flashing beacon
  • $2.6 million, spring creek so it can be helped from state municipal funding
  • Bid will open Feb. 5^th and back in front of council Feb. 15^th for approval
  • CM Ness: There was a lot of talk before about making it a four way stop and that map did not show that, is that correct?
    • David Bennett: Staff and thorough intersection analysis, in correspondence with rice county engineer, was conducted and we believe in phased approach for improvement, and revisiting the intersection as the traffic grows.
  • CM Ness: The county engineer also says it doesn’t warrant it, and your studies also say the same, but there are some of the Council and Maleka and some county board members would more than likely vote in favor of a four way stop going against the warrant of that. I would still like to see it, I think it is a bad intersection, especially with traffic coming in from the east on Woodley not able to see pedestrians and the traffic from the west has a curve right before intersection. I would move this forward if it needs to happen now, but I would prefer a four way stop.
  • CM Sokup: If the project moves forward tonight without the four way stop, what observation will be taken from when that improvement is done and another assessment would be done for a four way stop?
    • Bennett: We could revisit it to see how the function is with bikes, so 2027 we could revisit it. From traffic growth related to development, that won’t be seen right away.
  • CM Sokup: When I think about the four way stop versus traffic counting, to CM Ness’s point, the safety component is more about coming up to that intersection and with the curve there and the change in speed limit… I don’t think change in traffic numbers would change much, the road won’t change. I don’t believe the updates to crossing’s will slow people coming into town enough to make it safe.
  • CM Beumer: Didn’t we ask staff to take this to the county the last time it was on the agenda?
    • Bennett: I spoke to the rice county engineer and his direction is in support of the phased approach and not the four way stop. I don’t believe he brought it to the board.
  • CM Beumer: Is there a way we can get it in front of the board, that would take care of the problem?
    • Bennett: We can take it to the county board.
  • CM Peterson White: My intuition, which is not that of an engineer, is that the proposal does not create enough change to make it safer, but I have also heard more about the potential consequences of a four way stop. I understand the advantages of a phased approach in trying something before tying another, but are there reasons that would indicate it would be negative to add a four way stop, or is it just trying to do less first?
    • Bennett: There is a uniformity in how we try to implement traffic control, locally and really nationally. There are numerous studies that show there could be hazards from putting all way stops were they are not necessary. If there is a strong desire from Council for the stop, we could explore that with county. We would need to think about how to implement it and ensure drivers know the stop is coming. There is something unique here with the Milltown trail, more pedestrians.
  • CM Peterson White: I would just like to know, for someone who has read those studies, you can imagine how this could create a hazard. Can you be really specific about why that is? would it be because drivers coming into town are not aware of the stop and drivers from the other direction go through? Does it have to do with the road? It is counterintuitive about why a four way stop wouldn’t make people safer.
  • Mayor Zweifel: To add to that, the increased bike and pedestrian traffic from the Milltown trail, how would that be accounted for it what Peterson White said?
    • Bennett: The plan is to bringing in safety features and trying to have those in place proactively instead of retroactively. There could be vehicles that blow through the intersection. On the other hand, the slowing down, the braking, the acceleration after could also be hazardous for a stop. Also, when you go to an all way stop, you don’t have a rapid flashing light, so pedestrians could be anticipating vehicles stopping that don’t.
  • CM Holmes: I am just grappling with everything said, it is my ward. I wasn’t able to attend the community meeting, how were these recommendations received by the people attending that meeting? Was there discussion?
    • Bennett: Residents were there. We explained this information. There wasn’t a whole lot of opposition, but they also hadn’t had a speed feedback sign and there was positive feedback from that and the enhancement of the markings. I didn’t hear from the property owners much, there wasn’t a whole lot of opposition, but there wasn’t a full cross section of attendees to get information from everyone.
  • CM Ness: I’ve read a study that mentioned if you mark both sides, and put the red flashing light around the stop sign, it gains 70% of compliance with the stop sign. I can drop it off for reference.
  • CM Peterson White: I don’t find 70% compliance reassuring. There is a two way stop I go by every day and many people blow past and do not realize there is not a stop sign on the other direction. I just want to debunk the idea that a four-way stop is safer inherently, because the people designing it are not saying that. This intersection has more people coming into town with the trail as well.
  • Mayor Zweifel: Is it an either or for the four way stop and a rapid flashing light? Not a yes and?
    • Bennett: I’d have to look, but I don’t believe that it has been implemented anywhere
  • CM Beumer: From discussion on another resolution, the RFB costs 60k, the four-way stop must be cheaper than that. My big concern with this intersection is that we are adding sidewalks and the bike trail with the Milltown road, increasing traffic, and it seems ridiculous to not implement a four way stop and wait for someone to be injured. I think it would be super advantageous to talk to county about dropping speed limit approaching this intersection. The idea is that you implement it and have PD do some enforcement to spread the word.
  • Mayor Zweifel: How much control do we have on speed limits on this street?
    • Bennett: it is a county road
  • CM Ness: clarification, I believe the study said a 70% increase in compliance
  • CM Holmes: Is it too late to look at the red lights for the RFBs for that intersection, or would that need to be a separate agenda item
    • Bennett: I’m aware of the overhead hawk systems, I believe that is the system they have in Red Wing; that is something we could explore with the county; we want to make sure we continue to go up to bid, so we can receive good bids, but we can continue to work on traffic control for intersection.
  • CM Ness: I will look at the video, but its two red lights in each direction, when you push the button, they flash for a certain number of seconds, then go solid, then when turning off they flash red both directions then go dark.
  • Mayor Zweifel: opening to the public
    • Public member: A four way stop, coming from the east, indicates that I am in the city. You’re gonna accelerate until you get to that stop sign. I wonder if there is any study about driver behavior. I feel that I’m not in town until I get to the first stop sign.
  • CM Sokup motions
  • Mayor Zweifel: Do we need more specificity? For moving issue to the county for further discussion to explore the further safety considerations for the intersection including a four way stop and a speed control and a red stop.
  • CM Sokup: The goal is to get the project out to bid, but to keep the four-way stop open to discussion and more deliberation from council.
  • CM Peterson White: I am genuinely unsure of how to proceed and what is the safest decision going forward.
  • CM Homes: I agree, I know I use it, my children use this, we never go across Woodley, and this is already so heavily used, and I know there are gonna be so many more pedestrians and bikes with the Trail and I want to keep it the safest that it can be. I know the real time speed trackers are helpful and the red-light CM Ness described may be even better than a four way stop. I’m open to the phased approach while keeping things open for further discussion.
  • Motion carries

• Consider Councilmember roles on boards and commissions for 26-27 (presented by Admin. Martig)
  • In 2025, Council made amendments including a clause that the council will decide which boards and committees will have members
  • Required positions: City/Hospital Governance, Convention and Visitors Bureau, Council Employment, Economic Development Authority, Mill Towns Trail Join Powers Board, Rice/Steels 911 Center
  • Optional: Environmental Quality, Heritage Preservation, Hospital Board, Human Rights Commission, Library Board, Northfield Area Fire and Rescue Services, Planning Commission
  • Loose recommendation would be to add to required boards a voting member on the hospital and fire and rescue boards
    • continuity on the board for the hospital is desirable, especially with the new relationship between the hospital and Alina clinic
  • Thinking of creating more public engagement opportunities and it was brought up that reducing some of these optional positions might open up time/space for other engagement opportunities
  • CM Ness: In option 2, representation changes to voting, what happens to the other representation?
    • Admin. Martig: For the other optional ones, there would be no representation from the council. Administratively, we are doing quarterly staff meetings for liaisons and are exploring ways to do so outside of liaison pathways. How can we improve reporting back from the committees? Could we have staff provide notes from meetings?
  • CM Sokup: I’ve enjoyed having more updates from boards and commissions that I don’t follow, since council is its own time commitment, so, I am curious if we were to go with an option two, in the administrator’s update that could include monthly updates from the staff members assigned to boards/commissions? I would support an option two if there was some way to get a topline of this is what this board is working on.
  • CM Holmes motions option four with the addition of hospital and fire and rescue and recommend nonvoting members to the planning commission and the Environmental Quality Commission
  • motion seconded
  • CM Holmes: As the person on the planning committee, yes, it is a heavy lift, but looking at the comprehensive and strategic plans, we have very strong priorities with some of the options already listed. Our planes have very specific goals in line with the Environmental Quality Commission, I think in a nonvoting role it is helpful to have that tie back to council, while it is helpful to get information from staff, having connections to council is still helpful and making them nonvoting relieves some of the stress of making quorum, etc.
  • CM Sokup: I will add some perspective on being the EQC liaison. There were some comments made about the work plan items and that the EQC is an advisory board, and the role of that board is advisory to the council. I think the PC is statutorily different, so I don’t see that link to council as the same; I don’t see that a council necessarily has to be the liaison [to the EQC], as opposed to getting updates from staff.
  • CM Beumer: I don’t tend to disagree with you about the lack of need for a nonvoting member, but keeping a tie to the planning commission is important.
  • CM Sokup: Not trying to create a hierarchy of members, I just think the EQC has a different role.
  • CM Holmes: I would support if we take the EQC off, having been on the Parks Board which is also advisory, I want it to make it make sense.
  • CM Sokup: To the Mayor’s point, I would rather hear from an expert on the subject matter rather than a councilmember – amends motion to remove the EQC member
  • CM Peterson White seconds amendment, amendment passes
  • CM Peterson White: I think this edited version is a solid set of choices. With the more significant financial connections, I can see the importance of having representation on Hospital and NFAR; I do think the close tie to the planning commission is important and I have heard feedback about concerns of councilmembers voting on issues twice, once in Planning and again with council. I personally don’t consider it controversial, but I see it as cleaner having that member being nonvoting. I do want to point out that I also know it can feel like a larger burden to attend meetings when one is nonvoting. I want to ensure that when residents of Northfield are volunteering to serve on these boards and commissions, we are respectful of their time, meaning their work is highly relevant to our work. There have been experiences where committees work hard on an issue and then it is a nonstarter with council. I think having councilmembers serve on boards can be useful to alleviate this issue by providing feedback. I do think this change would create an additional burden on staff as well, so that council is still apprised of the work being done. Communication is really key if councilmembers are not providing that tie. I do think this change is good but want to provide a note of caution. It is very important to me that the people who step up from the community to do this work feel valued.
  • Mayor Zweifel: I share those goals of increasing engagement and having meaningful engagement. For these advisory boards, do they see themselves as being able to choose anything, or feel constrained by the strategic and comprehensive plans? I am curious how they are advisory, are we signaling what we’d like advice on, I think at least a portion should be that, but also allowing them to have leeway to bring things to council.
  • CM Holmes: In response to Peterson White, I agree with those things. For planning commission, as to why it was a nonvoting member, as a councilmember on the commission, is to provide another seat to a community member to have a voice in this rather than a councilmember who has a voice already. We can also reevaluate this every year.
  • CM Peterson White: Is it a requirement to have two members on the Environment Development Authority?
    • Admin. Martig: It is two, but I am unsure if that is statutory or not.
  • Motion carries
• Potential Resolution to Support the Authority to Impose a Local Sales Tax (Presented by Admin. Martig and Staff)
  • Part of strategic plan under financial health
    • Improve Financial Strength – increased revenue diversification
    • 10% increase in non-tax/non-governmental revenue
  • Comprehensive plan has alignment to this
    • capital budgeting, decision-making matrix, diversifying tax base, direct citizen engagement
      • public vote required under state law for local sales tax
  • A local option sales tax would be beneficial as it would distribute specific project capital costs to individuals to pay costs of a city outside of Northfield
    • 40% of local sales taxes from non-Northfield residents
    • estimated in Northfield to generate up to $11.4 million of revenue for projects
    • recent examples in Rochester, Bloomington, and Moorhead (all 0.5%)
  • You would issue debt (bonds) first to complete projects, and then repay them through the tax revenue over time
  • Typically if cities start these, they reup them later, but they still have to vet them each time they are approved
  • Current law requirements
    • proposed tax rate (0.5%) applied to only taxable sales in MN
    • detailed description of no more than 5 capital projects that will be funded by the tax
    • documentation of regional significance of each project, including the share of the economic benefit to or use of each project by those in and out of city
    • amount of sales tax revenue that would be used for each project and the estimated time need to raise that amount of revenue
  • Current state tax rates
    • state – 6.875%
    • current Northfield : 7.375%
      • Rice County has a 0.5% transit tax
  • Projects for consideration
    • NCRC (recreation/resource center?) – essential Capital Improvement Project costs plus energy investments
    • Library – essential CIP costs on exterior and interior
    • Riverfront park projects – essential CIP riverfront costs
      • park bathrooms, lions park shelter, Sechler park, east riverwalk stairs and railing, riverwalk “loop” additions, Ames park
    • 3^rd street parking structure – convert existing city parking at 300 Washington and on 3^rd street into a 2-level parking structure with infrastructure for further development in future on Washington street level
    • parking needs and demands have been a conversation coming up often, and tie into the Library changes
  • Estimated project costs
    • NCRC and Library $2.5 million each
    • Riverfront and 3^rd street parking $6.4 million each (either/or)
  • Timeline and process
    • end of January is deadline, council would have to pass on Jan 20^th
    • Legislature would approve request by May
      • would want at least one representative/senator to co-author
    • after session, council has to approve again
      • could be an opportunity to do community engagement
    • by august, council resolution on local referendum – must be a general election, so would be now or next year
    • local referendum in November
    • council must approve implementation if voter approved
  • Mayor Zweifel: I too would like to hear about interest from the council in local sales tax and if there was feedback
  • CM Holmes: questions, when it goes to legislature, do they approve an all or nothing or could they approve some projects and not others?
    • Admin. Martig: They start as individual projects and then become an omnibus bill. They could have some they approved and some not. Most likely they would be approved at end of session.
    • CM Holmes: not talking about all local sales tax, but our projects?
    • Admin Martig: State is most interested in whether the council supports it. Other than that, proving regional benefit is the big push, especially on whether they would kick out individual projects. It would be based on regional significance.
  • CM Holmes: Do we know if the county is planning to put anything forward?
    • Admin Martig: The last one they did was the jail project and that failed. I haven’t heard about anything else, though I have not asked them.
  • CM Ness: I do like the idea of Library and NCRC and for the 3^rd street parking, the $6.5 million would be a good start. I think adding the riverfront could also be good.
  • CM Peterson White: I strongly support a local sales tax and have for many years. As a downtown retailor, traffic to the downtown from outside of the community has grown tremendously in the last decade. As for the projects, these are all great ideas. Although, I am looking at the NCRC project, certainly we want to preserve it, I think that if we were to use these funds for recreation facilities in the building, I would want discussion about who has access to those facilities and if they are private. The library plans are really exciting, and I appreciate Natalie’s presentation and the community input.
  • CM Sokup: Question, is there a way, if this all passes and all these projects are within the realm of possibility for use of funds, is there a specific way the funding gets divided? Is that the limit? And is there a time constraint? I see the NCRC and the Library needs as more urgent compared to something like the 3^rd street parking; Do things need to be actively worked on or can they be potential uses?
    • Admin. Martig: The budgets are fixed in the proposal. You wouldn’t have to do a bond issue, so if you have projects still working out, you can let the cash build up. There is a bit of a dance on how detailed you are in the legislation versus details toward the voters.
  • CM Sokup: in general, I’m in support of these, especially in alleviating a property tax burden. I do think the referendum makes community engagement important because it is a tax. It will be important to describe the alleviation of property tax and how sales tax works. The community engagement and conversation with the public would be super important on this. I don’t think the 3^rd street parking structure fits as much into priorities and that it needs more development.
  • CM Beumer: This is a project-based thing, so it couldn’t be used for equipment purchases?
    • Admin. Martig: This is capital building projects only. It can’t be used as just an offset to regular expenses.
  • CM Beumer: Would an expansion to police station parking lot count?
    • Sherif: It would be a small project. As to whether it is regional? We provide backup support and are part of other programs (swat, drug), so it could work, though it might be a bit weak.
  • CM Beumer: I’m all for it. My main thing is that we focus on a list of things that are needed and not so much on wish-list type projects. We know we need to do things at the NCRC and the Library, would it be nice to complete the Riverfront loop, sure, but do we need to do it? if we can find projects maybe like the police department parking space problem or other capital type projects that are a little bit higher ticket projects, I’m all for it. I just want to make sure that we’re filling a need list and not a wish list. Definitely for it as far as the NCRC. I am not a hundred percent sure about the 3^rd street parking, I don’t think it is something we could sell to the general public. The Library and NCRC I think we can sell it. Tt is something that, personally, I think the county did a poor job of trying to sell the local tax for the jail. We need to be very diligent that we are educating people in what it is for and how it works, so they understand people from out of town will be helping.
  • CM Dahlen: It is $11.4 million over 20 years?
    • Admin. Martig: So the idea is that you issue a bond, and with repayment over 20 years, it is $11.4 million.
  • CM Dahlen: you would expect a 0.5% sales tax to generate how much revenue each year?
    • I have that stat, but I didn’t bring it today
  • CM Dahlen: I think the library ticks off a lot of boxes for the local sales tax, but I agree with much that has been said
  • CM Holmes: each project, say we had three projects, each would be listed separately?
    • Admin. Martig: Yes, there are legal requirements around what type of language we have to use.
  • CM Holmes: Just to clarify, we would propose this, the legislature would approve what it will, and then we choose what we go to the public with? If so, it might be better to maximize what we are asking for.
    • Admin. Martig: Yes
    • CM Holmes: Similar to our levy, it can’t go up, but it can go down
    • Admin. Martig: Yes, you could kick a project out if you wanted. I would be uncomfortable going to the legislature with an inflated number of what we can accomplish.
  • CM Holmes: Going back to the comprehensive and strategic plans, I think we have to go after this based on those. I think some of these projects are a little bit stretchy, we don’t have a lot about the Library, but there are things that tie in. Overall, I think the Library is a no brainer. I share concerns of Councilmember Peterson White about the NCRC building and wanting to preserve the reach we have to provide services to the public as a whole, especially if we are pursuing other options and grants for that building. I think we should go for as much as we can because of the legislative challenges brought up. I do agree with Councilmember Beumer, I’d rather go with needs and known needs, especially because I am not confident that voters will have an appetite for this. For any additional things, for me that is Riverfront park because it aligns with both the strategic and comprehensive plans. Within that project, what is least important to me would be Sechler park and the baseball field. I am just looking at the Parks Board and community input, and people want pickleball courts, more water access, etc. I believe providing things we know the community has a strong appetite for but that we don’t have plans for would be better. Bathrooms as well, that is something that gets into equity and accessibility. I would be good moving forward is figuring out what voters support.
  • Mayor Zweifel: strongly support a local option sales tax; there are a lot of projects already on our capital improvement plan, we should leave heavily on these projects; Library would be my top choice, then the NCRC; Riverfront and bathrooms also would be high on my list with the Riverwalk and thinking about what we are being asked for by people. One comment on the Library plans, specifically the lost shade, can we do a combination of artificial and natural shade, just thinking about extreme heat and how many people need it, along with the timeframe for natural shade which wouldn’t be immediate. To Councilmember Sokup’s point about voter and community engagement, I agree it is super important.
  • CM Peterson White: As someone who has spent time engaging in a customer facing role, I want to emphasize that I think it is a smart investment to ensure that the downtown area, which is an important economic and business center, is growing and improving. I have spent time hanging out with people who come to Northfield because of what we have to offer and the Riverfront especially is something that people appreciate, some come just for the river, others enjoy it after what drew them here, like a baseball game, etc. This is a place with huge potential and it might sound like a nice to have, but I do really think it has strong potential. On the 3^rd street parking project, I see connections to the Economic Development Authority’s work and have learned talking with people and business that one of the things at the top of people’s lists for needed improvements is accessible bathrooms. The Library or this 3^rd street parking structure could be potential locations for making that happen. Bathrooms are a huge limitation for events and businesses downtown and I think business downtown would see the 3^rd street parking structure as at least worthy of consideration.
  • CM Holmes: Just want to add, on the topic of voter engagement, this local sales tax could help to appease some who are frustrated that the college students don’t pay property taxes, because they do shop downtown, along with their families who come to visit.
    • Admin. Martig: As you say that, I am not sure if college students are being included in the 40% of non-locals that would contribute to this tax revenue, I’d have to double check that.

Administrators Updates

• Admin. Martig: Mostly has already been shared, but just want to add that the new sustainability/environmental position has been really exciting and they will be starting work soon.

Meeting Adjourned around 9:20pm