Redistricting questions

Don’t believe everything you read in the Northfield News, especially not headlines like Redistrict? Council wants to eliminate wards.

The goal is balanced, accessible representation for the residents of Northfield.  Dividing the city into geographic wards is one way to try to meet that goal, but not the only way.

The big advantage of the ward system is giving designated representation to each quadrant of the city by a resident of that ward.  Ward residents know who to call if they have a problem.  2nd Ward residents have needed help with or had questions about street lights, snow-plowing (not this year, obviously), beavers, parks, mowing (or rather non-mowing of vacant lots), trees, city maintenance, and traffic near the soccer fields at Spring Creek Park.  In turn, I keep closer track of what happens in the 2nd Ward and if ward-specific issues show up on the agenda – street projects are the most obvious – I have a special interest in making the best choice for the ward as well as knowing more about my home territory.  Erica Zweifel has consistently advocated for her 3rd Ward constituents in the siting of the Safety Center, improving pedestrian and bicycle connectivity across Highway 3, and working with St. Olaf College.

But, consider some other factors:

Geography is often not relevant: most issues are not specific to one ward and it is difficult to identify a ward-specific perspective. This was one of 4th Ward Councilor Patrick Ganey’s reasons for raising the question.

No geographic division will cut cleanly: Neighborhoods cut across ward boundaries and there are multiple neighborhoods within each ward. As well, some constituencies are better defined than others.  Would it make more sense to assign Council members to represent the colleges, retirement communities, non-English speaking residents, or any other identifiable group?

Some Council members are more responsive than others; wards with conscientious representatives get much better representation and conscientious reps get more work.  Prior to the last election, I got a significant number of calls from two other wards because their own ward representative could not be reached.

Council members tend to have particular issues they care about, know about, and work to advance; we could each represent areas of government rather than areas of town.  Have a land use problem?  Call me.

The school board elects at-large representatives with the top vote-getters from the pool being elected (4 seats open, for example, then the top 4 win).  If the Council adopted this system, we might imagine it could broaden the candidate pool – if there are openings on the Council, a candidate would not have to wait for the right ward opening, two strong candidates who live in the same area might both be elected, candidates might find it less daunting to run as part of a group knowing they didn’t have to get the most votes.   On the flip side, campaigning only in one ward might seem simpler than a city-wide effort.

In practice, some of my time goes to ward-related constituent service while more of it goes to general city business like tax levies, policy-making, etc.  For the city business part, wards are less important.  But, when calls to city hall can’t get streetlights fixed or residents have questions about city issues and services that’s when having ward representatives or some other easy way to know who to call is crucial.  Wards, whatever their shortcomings, make it easy: if you know where you live, you can figure out your ward representative.

The decennial redistricting is at least an opportunity to ask if we can do a better job of representing Northfield residents than the current system and, if we think we’ve found a better system, then we need to ask voters if they agree.  It’s a discussion, not a decision at this point.

Wind on the Planning Commission agenda

The Planning Commission is holding a special meeting tomorrow night to do what the Council asked: review and recommend a response on the proposed wind turbine projects currently before Rice County (Council will approve and tinker if necessary on 12/7).  See my previous posts from 10/30 and 11/7).  As an update, 3 of 5 projects by the same developers (GroWind and Spring Creek Wind) have been approved by the Rice County Board of Commissioners.

The Planning Commission is reviewing 2 projects - 1 is from Carleton College (here’s a map) which the College courteously brought to the City Council  (no legal requirement that they do so) before the public hearing would be held by the Rice County PC on 12/9.  The proposed turbine is easy to understand and to like – Carleton received a gift for another wind turbine.  The College would like to site this turbine so that it could connect directly to the campus electrical grid to power their operations (read all about it in the PC packet) which supports their intent to create a “green” campus.  Northfield would be buffered by the Arboretum and the biggest impact would likely be visual – another spinning windmill to the east (which some people think is wonderful and some consider hideous – not sure how to deal with this dichotomy).

How different from the other project under development in Rice County south of Northfield (here’s that map) which the City Council only heard about through back channels when it was almost too late to comment.  Given the way the issue got to the Council, it’s easy to be suspicious of this one.  The facts that the same developers are proposing to build a total of 5 projects suggests a much more commercial mission than Carleton’s; “commercial” and “profitable” are certainly not negative words, but some have wondered if this is just a money-making deal with no concern for the impact.  Add concerned neighbors (see Dr Gary Carlson’s piece in the Strib) and a contentious Rice County Planning Commission hearing and it gets even harder to calmly and objectively consider what the impact on Northfield and its future development might be.

But, the Planning Commission will need to do just that at its meeting tomorrow evening. The PC has elected to take comments from Carleton College and Spring Creek Wind LLC representatives as well as input from the public (the meeting is not a public hearing but an open forum as a courtesy to the developers and interested others), so they run the risk of distracting themselves from the task at hand which is to recommend appropriate comments on the impact of the projects on Northfield and its land use plans.

Their task is not to recommend to Rice County how they should decide the issue.  Don’t like the County’s use of the conditional use permit process for land uses like this?  Unfortunately, not up for discussion.  The PC needs to balance the goals objectives of the Comprehensive Plan which call for energy conservation and sustainability throughout the community and the planned use of the land at the south edge of town for residential development then recommend comments which reflect what the anticipated impact to our existing and planned land uses.

Beyond the narrow task, I’d say it is also an opportunity for the Council, with help from the PC, to try to begin a broader conversation with Rice County (and our township partners) about planning at the city limits.  This might include working with the County about what land uses are appropriate on our borders and what sort of approval process would be most effective.  I have a dream about regional planning, so I’m hoping for some baby steps toward this dream.  It is also an opportunity for the PC to consider other pieces of the Comprehensive Plan which have not (yet) been addressed by the soon-to-be-adopted Land Development Code such as drafting ordinance language for conservation subdivisions and considering how to preserve a green buffer at the south edge of the city.

Safety Center recommendation on Council agenda

The Safety Center Task Force was given 90 days to meet, review information and return to the Council with recommendations about the size, location and financing of a new Safety Center and here’s their answer:

1. Recommendation on Building Size: Having reviewed the data presented to the Taskforce, the Taskforce recommends to the City Council to construct a combined Public Safety Center of 47,500 square feet in size.

2. Recommendation on Building Location: Utilizing the Site Selection Criteria and after a thorough review of 13 sites throughout the City, the Taskforce is recommending two sites for Council consideration:

a. Valley Co-Op located on Highway 3
b. Cowles Property located on Riverview Drive.

Either site will meet the needs of a combined Public Safety Center. The Taskforce strongly encourages the City Council to do a detailed review of all flood protection criteria to determine what can be done at the current Safety Center Site and explore ideas relating to reuse of this site as “gateway” to the City.

3. Recommendation on Financing: Having reviewed the data presented by City Finance staff and the City’s Bond Council, the Taskforce recommends the City Council consider the following options for financing:

a. Voter approval through a referendum of the sale of $10.4 million in General Obligation Bonds.
b. City Council approval of the sale of $10.4 million in Capital Improvement Bonds, subject to a reverse referendum.

The Taskforce further recommends that regardless of which financing option the City Council chooses, a thorough public education process be done prior to approval to move forward with financing.

Read the full report included as an addendum to the Council packet

There are a lot of numbers in the report including 4 pages of square footage for each program or space in the current facility and then a new (usually larger) space requirement allotted by the schematic design for a new facility.   I do not want to debate each item, but I would like to know how the numbers were determined in a general way.  Were these numbers calculated from some industry standard which says for x number of police personnel the facility should have y square feet of locker room space (if so, what is that standard)?   Were they estimated based on inferences from other facilities in the region (if so, which ones?)?  Were they pulled out of thin air (I hope not)?  I am especially interested in how the future growth allowances were figured…

Some numbers are conspicuously absent from the report. In the “Project Budget” for the recommended 47,500 SF facility, the total cost is estimated at $10,400,000 not including site purchase.   The site evaluation matrix included “cost” as one criterion for selecting a location for the facility.   But just how much does the choice of site affect the price tag?  Cost of the property is one number, but what about site preparation, infrastructure and access improvements and any other site specific investments?   And is $10+ million dollars for 47,500 SF a reasonable amount at all?  Looks like $185 per square foot for police administrative spaces and $155 per square foot for all other spaces is the muliplier…where does this number come from?  What’s the per square foot cost of other, comparable, facilities?

Also missing: useful information about the current Safety Center site. The Task Force recommended 2 other sites rather than reusing the current site, but then indicates more information is needed about the current location.  Why is the Task Force asking for information about this so late in the game?   Some questions of reuse or rebuilding might seem to be downstream issues not relevant to the new Safety Center, but if we could sell the current site, for example, and collect property taxes from that highly visible corner, that could offset some of the cost of the new facility.   Or the City could be saddled with a difficult to reuse site.

Referendum or no referendum? At my Ward meeting there was some lively discussion about this one.  One the one hand, some thought that raising taxes for this project required the public buy-in that a referendum brings (assuming it passes anyway).  The other view was that asking the voters for approval on such projects was a step down the road toward California-style government by proposition (which is expensive, to say the least) and reverse referendum would be available if there was great public disapproval.  I tend toward the “no referendum” side because I think the Council is elected to make tough decisions and to lead the city.   Raising taxes is a step which must be undertaken only when truly justified to support the City’s operations.   The Council must be very sure that the increase is needed and that the dollars will be spent wisely…which gets back to all those questions above.

1st 2nd Ward Meeting – Saturday, June 6 @ the Safety Center

On Saturday, June 6th I’ll be holding my first Ward Meeting for my 2nd Ward constituents – but it’s a joint 1st Ward (that’s Jim Pokorney’s ward) and 2nd Ward ward meeting.    The meeting is at the Safety Center, from 9-10 am or a bit later.  Police and fire department personnel will attend plus Joel Walinski, City Administrator.  The agenda: Update on the Safety Center and the process for expanding and/or relocating, information about the police and fire departments and what they do, your questions and comments.  Please come!

If you can’t come, you can always contact me via the Northfield Council web page or the contact page