Category Archives: Council agendas

Budget Season 2011, part 2

Posted on by
2

If you want all the details about the proposed levies, see the previous post.  If you want to read the latest Northfield budget documents, see the City website here.

I have two questions:

Are tax dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively?  We don’t ask you to pay taxes, we demand that you do, so elected officials better be sure we know where the money goes, whether city operations are as productive and economical as possible, and that we spend wisely for the long term.  City staff are diligent about answering this question as they cut costs, streamline services, and adapt the budget to the shrinking tax base, unpredictable state aid, and increasing needs.   I give Northfield a B (I’m a tough grader – I went to college when a C was an average grade).

How are tax dollars being used to implement the policy decisions made by the Council?  Hmmm.  I don’t know.  I could give Northfield an F, but I think I am still optimistic enough to assign an Incomplete to this question.

In my budget utopia, the Comprehensive Plan would be the foundation of the budget with programs evaluated for their consistency with the Comp Plan and new initiatives derived from the Plan.  After that, the other policies of the city (we’re part of the GreenStep Cities program, for example, and have a Comprehensive Economic Development Plan) would be used to guide spending.

Regular readers know that I think the vision and policies of the Comp Plan provide a framework for more compact, denser development which will be more cost effective in the long term (see, e.g. my post on an economically healthy Northfield, and follow up to a Strong Towns presentation).  Because I think the fiscal health of Northfield as well as its sense of place, natural environment, and quality of life all can benefit from attention to the Comp Plan, I am frustrated by my own inability to help turn the budget conversation around to address the long term, more taxpayers per acre, less car-dependent vision.  I give myself a D+ for this quarter.

Budget season 2011

Posted on by
1

I started this post back in September.  Unfortunately, before writing much I decided to reread my posts from last year on budgets, budget policy, budget development, budget questions, and tax levies.  It was a thoroughly dispiriting experience.  With but a few minor changes, I could simply repost them and the questions, concerns, and issues would be equally relevant in 2011.

The 2012 budget/tax levy situation thus far:

The Council adopted preliminary tax levies and budget at our meeting on September 6 (State law requires we take this action by September 15; Charter requires it by the first regular meeting in September).  The proposed levy sets the maximum amount we can levy which is also the amount which you will find on your proposed property tax notice from the county (which also includes the public hearing date for each jurisdiction for you to make a statement to the county, school and/or city about your taxes).

The practical purpose of the levy is to set the maximum levy which staff then works to reduce by the time we much adopt the final levy in December.  There is a temptation here, I think, to set the levy high and to vote to adopt it because it’s “just preliminary.”  I got to the Council by way of the Planning Commission, however, and in land use it’s the preliminary plat, not the final plat, which establishes the legal rights.  I see preliminary levies the same way – by September 15 we really should have done all the work and the 4th quarter is proofreading and double-checking.  But here’s where are are:

Preliminary bottom lines

Housing and Redevelopment Agency (HRA) levy: $236,234.  This is the maximum allowable levy (based on .0185% of the taxable market value of property in Northfield) and a 9.3% increase over the current year levy.  Why the maximum?  The HRA has a steady record of accomplishment and is the only area of city government where adopted policy clearly drives action.  They’ve been very successful at leveraging tax dollars to qualify for grants, tax credits and other funding.  And, they’ve continually reported to the Council in a clear and complete manner.   In this economy, the HRA’s work has become even more critical for ensuring safe, affordable housing for Northfield and the way they do their work should be the model for the city.

Economic Development Authority (EDA) levy:  $221,384.  EDA levies are also capped by state law at .0183% of taxable market value.  We’ve usually set the EDA levy at or near the maximum allowable which would be $233,681 for 2012 (based on 2011 payable); the approved number is the maximum based on the 2012 payable taxes (the difference is part of the fallout from the Market Value Homestead Credit change).  Last year, I voted against the preliminary EDA levy, but caved on the final levy on the assurances that the Council would work on addressing concerns about the EDA.  And I’ve said a great deal to say about the EDA as it is currently configured and how it is currently performing (in 2011: July, April, February and January).  I voted no on the preliminary levy, but I’d love to be surprised before December by a clear EDA budget tied to the Comprehensive Economic Development Plan by December.

City Levy: $6,898,909.  This amount is an increase of $464,909 or 7.2% over the 2011 levy amount.  The number has two parts, the operating levy and the bonded debt levy.  Of the increase, $311,843 is for operations (5.8% increase over 2011); $153,066 is for bonded debt (14.2% over 2011 – total bonded debt levy for 2012 is $1,234,631). Consider, for a very rough forecast, that bonding for a new Safety Center (between $8 and $10 million dollars) will add somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000 annually to the debt levy.

Now you may as well just read last year’s posts here and here.

The next chapter on economic development

Posted on by
2

Although it took far too long to get to this point, the Council finally made a decision on Tuesday, July 5, on whether to continue to have an Economic Development Authority.  By a 4-3 vote (Rossing, Vohs, Pownell, Nakasian voted yes; Buckheit, Ganey and Zweifel against), the Council passed a motion (drafted by Councilor Nakasian) which retains the EDA and calls for a subcommittee of the Council to recommend changes to the EDA enabling resolution and other changes using the March 2011 Clough EDA report as a reference.  In addition, the Council will identify strategies and partnerships needed to accomplish the Council’s economic development policies (adopted June 21) and meet with the EDA to formulate a workplan.  The mayor will name appointments to fell the two vacant seats (one Council, one citizen).

I voted against this motion and for the motion Patrick Ganey drafted for more than one reason:

  • the duty of the Council to determine all policy of the City (we get that power from the City Charter as Mr Ganey noted in his motion),
  • efficiency: policy could be made more effectively and efficiently with one body rather than two,
  • transparency and accountability
  • flexibility: the statutory framework of an economic development authority is quite narrow and I felt it was worth considering alternative means to get quality input from citizens, the business community, and local groups involved in economic development.
  • leadership: no current members of the EDA have demonstrated leadership in trying to respond to Council questions, the Clough report, or other matters which come before them.  I have more confidence in the Council’s leadership than the EDA’s.

But I also understand what a decision of the Council means, so now it’s time to work to develop a good strategic plan to carry out our policies and try to reform the EDA itself into a functional body to implement the Council’s plan.  I am profoundly glad a decision has been made and we can now move past the question of the EDA’s existence.

Perspective from another city

Posted on by
Reply

Visiting other places is always good for my outlook and perspective on Northfield.  I’m in Washington, DC right now.

Bag tax: The No

rthfield Council heard a presentation from Marcea Frazier proposing a 20-25 cent tax on bags (paper or plastic) at stores as a means to change consumer behavior.  Here in DC, I’ve been paying a five cent tax on every little bag I’ve received for my postcards, takeout food, etc.  The goal for the DC Bag Tax is raising revenue to clean up the Anacostia River rather than just encouraging consumers to bring their own bags.  However, since the tax went into effect in 2010  businesses report an immediate drop in paper/plastic bag use.

Bike to the Capitol!

Bikes and bike lanes: As Northfield considers what design of Jefferson Road might be good for cars and bicycles (with the usual fear-mongering about cyclist safety on the streets), DC has put bike lanes right down the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue. There are two lanes – 1 in each direction – between the traffic lanes + well-marked intersections and turn lanes.  The lanes were in use by commuter/messenger cyclists – those expert users -but also touristy families on rented bicycles and folks riding bright red Capital Bikeshare bikes.

Public transportation: Yes, I love the Metro.

From the airport to Capitol Hill via Metro train

Street trees: Another piece of the Northfield City Council’s street design discussion - on Linden and Plum Streets rather than Jefferson Road this time – is trees.  In July, in Washington DC, street trees are a wonderful addition to the walkability and livability of the city.  Of course, they look nice and bring green movement to all that pavement and big buildings.  The real value to me, however, is the shade.  The shade from trees around Capitol Hill, the Mall, and nearby makes walking from place to place to Metro Station cooler and more pleasant.  The shade also keeps benches and other street elements from becoming too hot to touch or sit upon.  People gather to eat, talk, and relax in the shady places around federal office buildings, near tourist attractions, and for sidewalk dining.

Community survey

Posted on by
6

Nothin' up my sleeve...PRESTO!

The results are in from the community survey (report in Council Packet, Patch, Northfield News) and, unlike Bullwinkle, I don’t think we found many surprises.   Results were generally positive to positively general questions – at best we can discern general tendencies, but the survey will not help us make any more subtle policy distinctions.

Some questions you should ask about the results:

1. Was this a good use of taxpayer dollars (I voted against the $12,500 community survey)?  Was it needed?  Are there better uses for this money?  Were there other ways to get information?  Will it help us do what we need to do?

2. Why weren’t college students surveyed?  Unfortunately, the Council did not have the opportunity to make a policy choice about surveying college students, they were excluded by the Decision Resources, Ltd.  This is unfortunate because college students make up about a quarter of our population, because we continually talk about how we can retain or recapture alumni for economic development, and because college students have a significant impact on our economy, the character of the town, and sense of place.

3. What good does it do the Council to know, for example, that 55% of those surveyed rated snowplowing essential, but only 23% rated elections essential?  This type of comparison is unlikely to assist is making reasonable choices about how much money to spend on snowplowing (where we have to make our best estimate about budget and then wait to see how much it snows) and elections (clearly identifiable costs and utterly essential to government).

4. How does this survey help us make good policy which reduces the overall cost of government?  Take roads.  Our streets are not in good shape, as anyone who drives or bicycles in Northfield can tell.   Survey suggests we should generally improve street condition and spend more money to do it.  What it will not help the Council do is find the best policy for street designs which reduce costs (think skinny streets), optimally schedule maintenance, repair and reconstruction, and certainly won’t help us build in public policy objectives like pedestrian safety, stormwater management (stormwater had its own survey questions), or green infrastructure.

5. Perception vs. reality: The survey measures residents’ perception of government cost and services.  Some services are accessible and obvious (street condition, library services), others are less so (stormwater, animal control).  Some are used by all (streets), others by few (transit).  How do residents form their opinions and where do they get their information?  How should the Council use these perceptions to form policy?  How can the City help educate Northfield about what we do, how much it costs, and what the options might be?  The survey reported (and Councilor Gainey noted in his comments in the News) that residents rely more heavily on the local newspaper for their news about government.  How should this affect what we do?

6. How reliable and valid is the survey?  Others who are more expert than I have questioned the methodology of the survey.  It would be great to have some expert and impartial analysis of the survey itself to unravel the “lies, damned lies, and statistics” issue, but not at your expense.

Highest and best use

Posted on by
5

Highest and best use of prime London riverfront?

Mayor Rossing has used the term “highest and best use” in the context of several projects in recent weeks with the latest iteration applied to the proposed relocation of the old depot to the Q Block.  As in: “Would relocating the depot to the Q Block be the highest and best use of that property?”

“Highest and best use” is a term from real estate valuation and appraisal; it is a useful tool for considering land value and a developer’s possible return on investment.

Used casually, however, I’d suggest the term is aimed at defeating or at least questioning the desirability of a project.  “Highest” and “best” are absolute terms, after all, so any doubt about a project tends to create the impression that it is too low and not good enough.  Used in public policy, as when Northfield tries to determine the highest and best use of a piece of property, the immediate analogy would suggest the city is playing the same role as a private developer and maximizing the profit on that specific piece of land.  I’d argue, however, that city government usually needs to look beyond the parcel in question to determine value and that public use of property may not be the highest dollar value, but could be the highest community value.

But, let’s think about this in policy terms relative to current events in Northfield: Depot and public safety facilities.  Here’s a short definition of highest and best use:

The highest and best use generally is the use that is reasonably probable, physically possible, supported by the market, and returns the highest value to the land. The final estimate of highest and best use should be defensible, the logic internally consistent, and the conclusions well supported and documented by facts as well as opinions.

Physically possible:  I’d say this is more like “buildable at an acceptable cost.”  Physically imperfect sites can be made usable by extensive grading, soil correction, flood mitigation, etc. all of which cost money.  Take the Council’s public safety site selection process as an example.

The physical limitations of the current Safety Center site (small, floodplain, difficult highway access) make its reuse problematic at best.   Some have claimed reusing the current building for police would be the most cost effective.  Others have countered that the flood mitigation, renovation of the building, and other site related costs make it too expensive.

For those who wonder why the Council can’t seem to decide on another site for either a combined or separate facility, the physical limitations are the biggest issue.  Of the sites considered, size, topography, infrastructure location (where the pipes and wires are placed on the site), and highway access are issues in each of them.  The Council determined that central location was required; public policy has thus constrained the choice of site and raised the cost.

Supported by the market and returns the highest value: This does not fit neatly into a public sector analysis for a couple of reasons.  One thing governments do is provide public goods.  We levy taxes and use that revenue to provide services for which there is not or should not be a private market.  I’d throw public safety and transit (to a lesser extent) into the public goods basket.  If we have policy goals of providing fire and police protection for all Northfielders (24/7 without a charge per incident) and incentivizing transit use for a variety of reasons (reducing vehicle miles traveled, providing low cost transportation for those without cars, saving fuel, reducing pollution, etc.), using land for facilities for these purposes is unlikely to be either supported by the market or return the highest value.  For the Depot, there is the additional value of historic preservation to figure into the calculations.

Government should consider what market-driven use a public use of the land might displace.  If, for example, we decided to use The Crossings site for public safety (it’s on the list), this land is at a highly visible intersection on Highway 3, but proximate to Division Street and the heart of downtown along with a substantial amount of Cannon River frontage.  It’s well worth considering whether there is a private, revenue and tax producing use which might a higher and better use of this site.

The same question should be asked of the proposed Depot location on the Q-Block.  The Crossings project was supposed to redevelop the old Kump lumber yard site, but economics short-circuited it.  The Q-Block has been talked about as a redevelopment opportunity for decades, but nothing has jump started that process.  Would placing the Depot (which would be privately owned on publicly owned land) on the Q-Block be a useful catalyst for redevelopment or a deterrent?  What else might the City do with its Q Block property?

Defensible, consistent, supported, and documented:  For government, this is key.  We’re spending your money which we take via taxes without asking you whether you like it or not.    The latest Public Safety activity is to form groups to develop “shared facts” about the sites under consideration and about the reuse of the current building (Yes, we should have done this at least a year ago, but it took our newly elected Council members to articulate the need and Administrator Tim Madigan to construct the process).  The outcome, I hope, will be concise information about proposed sites and the current building which will make the Council’s decision making easier and inform the public about how that choice was made.

The Save the Northfield Depot group has done a lot of homework for the Council (see their report in the Council packet from March 15) in terms of documentation.  The Council now needs to use that plus our own research about costs, process, and alternative uses of the site to make a defensible, etc. decision.

And finally, government also has a role in determining the highest and best use of almost all property through our tax policy, zoning regulations, development fees and exactions which add to the cost of any development and create incentives and obstacles to what might be developed.  We should be keeping this fact of governing in mind as we make our decisions to ensure that the consequences are intended.

Help wanted

Posted on by
Reply

The City of Northfield catches flack from time to time about the city website, ffailure to employ social media, lack of transparency in government, and other “failure to communicate” issues.   And we worry about how to involve citizens in the work of the city through boards and commissions, volunteer opportunities, etc.

So, here’s an idea to address all these issues at once: Code for America:

Working with city managers, we help to identify projects that can benefit from web-based solutions. Code for America recruits both the development teams and the participating cities through competitive application processes. Once identified and funded, each city project is connected with a web development team that can further scope the project, develop an action plan, and deliver an appropriate solution over an 11-month development cycle. Throughout the development cycle, CFA mentors, trains, and coordinates the teams and facilitates their relationships with their city management clients.

The applications that Code for America fellows build fit a certain model: 1) They are web applications – think Facebook, Yelp, Zillow, or Picnik; 2) They will enable cities to connect with their constituents in ways that reduce administrative costs and engage citizens more effectively; 3) They support the move toward transparency and collaboration; 4) and finally, they are shareable – which means that an application built for one city can be used by any other city.

Fundamentally, it’s all about helping American cities use web technology to do a better job of providing services to citizens.

The Council talks business park

Posted on by
8

If looks could kill, I wouldn’t be blogging today.

Tuesday’s worksession was devoted to economic development.  First, we reviewed the Business Park Master Plan (Part 1, Part 2, Executive Summary) followed by a discussion of Northfield’s core policy documents the Comprehensive Plan, Economic Development Comprehensive Plan, Arts Plan, etc.  It should have happened in the opposite order, but much of the business park discussion hints at the themes of our planning documents, so let’s just talk business park.

Rick Estenson and Jody Gunderson were staring daggers at me, but still failed to address my fundamental concerns about how the short and long-term costs of such a project will reduce or eliminate the stated benefit.  Simply repeating “we need to increase our tax base and create jobs” in the face of opposition is not an answer, it’s a dodge.

My position remains the same – until the EDA can answer questions about who will pay for the initial infrastructure improvements and how the maintenance of that much additional infrastructure will cost the city, and how much of those costs is projected to be offset by increased property taxes (including when the city will break even on its expenditure), there is no “tweak” possible which will get me to consider giving my support to this plan.

Infrastructure costs are a Really Big Problem. Reading MN Dot’s 20 year highway investment plan:

With a total estimated investment need exceeding $65 billion during the next 20 years, and projected revenues of about $15 billion, this analysis indicates that almost $50 billion remains in “unmet needs.” To place this level of funding in perspective, every 5 cents on the motor vehicle fuel tax in Minnesota provides just under $100 million per year to the State Road Construction fund. To meet five percent of the $50 billion gap, or $2.5 billion, over the next 10 years would require the equivalent of a 12.5-cent increase in the motor vehicle fuel tax.

Northfield’s pavement quality is also deteriorating (see Pavement Management info).  The City bonds annually for street reconstruction projects.  In 2011, reconstructing parts of Linden, Plum and W. 2nd Streets will cost about $2 million (reconstruction means replacing water and sewer services as well as the street itself), plus more projects to maintain pavement quality (but I think local drivers will agree that we’re not really keeping up with this).  We are planning to bond for about $10 million for a new Safety Center and watch our revenue drop with cutbacks in local government aid, so I don’t anticipate that our spending on infrastructure will increase any time soon and I wouldn’t be surprised if it decreases (and I’ll bet state spending will decrease, too).

Northfield needs to think long-term about infrastructure. Water, wastewater, and streets are core services which impact the city’s ability to attract business, are fundamental to public health and safety, and affect our quality of life.  How are we going to fund these bedrock services?  It would have been great if the EDA had made minimizing infrastructure extension one of the priorities for additional land for commercial industrial development to help keep the city’s costs lower.  I see the business park as part of a vicious circle – we need growth to expand the tax base to pay for city services.  By growing in such an infrastructure intensive way, the cost of providing city services is higher, so we need to grow the tax base even more.

The Comprehensive Plan’s emphasis on compact development is not about how Northfield looks, it is also about what development costs. Development on existing infrastructure, or as close to it as possible costs less and provides a higher return on investment.

The other issue which bothers me here is how little control the City of Northfield really has in terms of development of a business park.  No matter how wonderful the Master Plan is, it is only a plan.  Plans “guide” future development, but they do not have the force of ordinances.  Both plans and ordinances can be amended to meet current needs.  Northfield owns none of the land for the proposed business park.  The land is not yet subdivided (that would trigger higher tax rates) into the nice grid street plan in the plan.  Road improvements are dependent on multiple jurisdictions (state, two counties, townships, and city).  Oh, and then there’s the problem that we have master planned two sites – one in Greenvale Township and one in Bridgewater.  Attracting the “right” businesses will require luck, marketing, and favorable economic winds over many years.  When we’re thinking about allocating scarce dollars, is this a good bet?  I say no.

Placing my bets: The Comprehensive Economic Development Plan emphasizes providing additional land for development.  The plan says 120 acres and more would have adverse impacts on downtown on the community and downtown.  Former Community Development Director Brian O’Connell announced at the worksession that this number was more or less random – see the News.   Dodging the dodgy numbers problem, I’ll assume we need considerably less than the almost 1000 acres involved in the North and South sites of the business park plan.  What’s the lowest cost location(s)?  Does it have to be a pre-planned “park”?  Have we asked our current businesses?

The other parts of the economic development plan really look at (1) working with existing businesses and trying to meet their needs (did you know Malt-O-Meal is the largest taxpayer in Rice County?  I learned this at the worksession), (2) building on the assets two colleges bring to town (alumni and other creative class assets), (3) connecting with the workforce we already have (including our Latino population) and (4) enhancing Northfield’s sense of place especially the Cannon River.  Once again, when we are allocating limited dollars for economic development, I think directing resources toward known assets like colleges, current businesses, local entrepreneurs, and the downtown, allows us to direct dollars toward development which could provide a better return on a lower cost investment, rather than planning a speculative business park.

Yet another economic development idea – economic gardening

Posted on by
8

Hunting for tax base and jobs

If you followed the link in my last post to the full Strong Towns piece, you would have encountered a further link to Littleton, CO’s web page about economic gardening.   Gardening in this case does not (necessarily, anyway) have anything to do with growing crops, but is a metaphor to distinguish “economic gardening” from “economic hunting.”

If you are an economic hunter, you get your big guns of tax incentives, development fee rebates, and other subsidies and go hunting for companies to bag for your town.   You might take along your decoys and duck calls in the form of marketing videos and brochures to entice companies to bring their business close enough to shoot.   You probably spend a lot of time in the woods waiting, spending taxpayer money, hoping for big game to wander by.

If you are an economic gardener, on the other hand, you cultivate entrepreneurs to grow businesses.   Like growing crops, a community engaged in economic gardening looks for seeds which grow well in the local culture, provides resources to support their growth, and (in the long term) reaps the benefits of their success.

Littleton, CO states clearly what some Northfield critics have been fearing – “community development is economic development.” Consider the 3 areas in which Littleton’s city government has chosen to work to cultivate a fertile place for entrepreneurs:

  • Information: 3/4′s of the time is spent “providing tactical and strategic information.”  Indeed, Littleton’s Business and Industry Affairs department is a library of entrepreneurial resources and services.  Using research databases and other sources, they “develop marketing lists, competitive intelligence, industry trends, new product tracking, legislative research and to answer a number of other custom business questions.”  Real estate and construction are monitored, available land and vacant buildings cataloged, and training programs are developed specifically for Littleton and its business environment.  Information is also a big part of Northfield’s Comprehensive Economic Development Plan, although these recommendations have languished thus far in favor of the business park.  As well, I don’t see any evidence that the EDA or staff have considered research, information gathering, delivering strategic information to businesses or prospective businesses as a task in itself, rather smaller information related goals which are subsumed under other headings.  Our NEC does provide some of the informational services and it would be interesting to determine just how far that organization does go in this area (their website is generic and not entirely up to date).
  • Infrastructure: Littleton invests in infrastructure and “not just basic physical infrastructure but also quality of life infrastructure and intellectual infrastructure.”   Good physical infrastructure is basic government service, of course.  Quality of life infrastructure gets back to parks, trails, sidewalks, and libraries which make a community attractive to the entrepreneurs and the creative class who are going to be driving the economy.  Intellectual infrastructure, for Littleton,  has included developing courses and training materials related to business, management, entrepreneurship, etc. at in conjunction with local educational institutions (similar recommendations exist in our Economic Development Plan, incidentally).  Many of these activities are not EDA-type activities, but city efforts, of course.
  • Connections: Littleton works to connect its businesses with other businesses, trade organizations, think tanks and people who can help them grow.  I’d bet the ability to make these connections depends heavily on the information piece – knowing what’s out there and who to contact takes some research – as well as having someone with the networking skills to do the interpersonal work to make these things happen.

Approaches like economic gardening and the Ahwahnee Principles I blogged about earlier demand a different skill set (and a different mindset, of course) than we have seen around most of Northfield city government.  There is certainly a holistic, long-term vision and the ability to think creatively and critically.  Then there is the overt effort to be open, inclusive and collaborative rather than narrowly focused inside city hall.  Finally, the role of government shifts from administering discrete programs to connecting people and businesses with resources.   Planning efforts in Northfield are not too far away from some of this, but we have stumbled when trying to implement our plans.   So far, anyway.

Another economic development link

Posted on by
10

One of the elephants in the room

The Strong Towns blog is one of my favorites because of its big picture/local scale approach backed up by real data.   Here’s today’s blog post Starter Strategies for a Strong Town.    I’d love to see Northfield go through these “ten things all local governments should be doing right now to start the transition into a new economic reality”

1. 5 year budget: Interim City Administrator Tim Madigan has proposed and the Council agreed to a two year budget cycle, so we’re moving in the right direction.

2. Base Line Workload Analysis – Essentially, cities need to analyze staffing and workload needs to allocate resources to the most productive way to deliver services.  The ST folks suggest:

Each task that the city and its staff perform should be listed and put into at least three different categories:

  1. Those things that are mandated by the State and Federal Gov’t
  2. Those things that are required by the Council or another public body
  3. Those things that are done exclusively for the staff

Once this task list is assembled, there can be a productive discussion about what tasks should continue, which can be cut, which can be reworked and then how the workload should be distributed. Only then can an informed decision on the needed level of staffing be made.

3. Real Capital Improvements Plan –  I agree with the ST people that “maintenance of infrastructure is the elephant in the room that cities simply can’t ignore any longer.”   They recommend:

A complete inventory of all of the infrastructure currently maintained, its condition, an estimate of its remaining life and an approximate cost for its replacement/maintenance is the first step. With modern GIS and database systems and a cadre of trained volunteers, most of this information is reasonably obtainable.

And I’d add that we should have a complete inventory of all our facilities and capital equipment, too, with the same sort of information.  Indeed, we should have had this information before we ever began our Safety Center discussions.

4. Form-based code throughout historic neighborhoods.  Sigh.  Back when the Comp Plan was being drafted (2006 and 2007), the consultants promised a “form-based code” to go with the plan (the city even sent the city planner off to learn about form-based codes at your expense), but when the draft arrived (from the same consultants, sort of), the result was not form-based, but regulations trying to micro-manage uses.  The Planning Commission has made great progress, but more could certainly be done.

5. New Road and street standards: another cost and value of infrastructure point.  Also supported by the GreenStep cities program in which we are participating.

6. Coordination of park investments with economic development: A point certain to tick off the 1st and 2nd wavers in our economic development circles.

7. Walkability Study

8. Implement an Import Replacement economic development strategy: Another point guaranteed to bother the smokestack chasers.

9. Small business subsidy plan: Or, incentivizing the businesses we are likely to attract as well as help our existing businesses grow.

10. Gov. 2.0 Public engagement platform: this one will thrill Griff Wigley over at Locally Grown who has been hocking me (for years now) about engaging citizens where they are (that is, on-line).  The Council has touched on using social media and upgrading the web-site and the IT plan we are going to discuss tomorrow (it’s in the packet for the worksession) is another nudge in this direction.