The official page says “A Comprehensive Plan is a guidebook for the city looking 20 years into the future. It starts by defining a shared vision with the community then developing steps toward achieving that vision.”
This is true but incomplete. Comprehensive planning is not just about the vision of Northfield in 20 years, but intended to create a better city with particular emphasis on making a city economically sustainable by anticipating development and the public services needed to support it.
Comprehensive planning got going in the 1960s along with urban renewal (Northfield’s first plan was funded with urban renewal grant dollars). In Minnesota, comp plans are a child of this 1965 state policy:
“The legislature finds that municipalities are faced with mounting problems in providing means of guiding future development of land so as to insure a safer, more pleasant and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public activities, to preserve agricultural and other open lands, and to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Municipalities can prepare for anticipated changes and by such preparations bring about significant savings in both private and public expenditures. Municipal planning, by providing public guides to future municipal action, enables other public and private agencies to plan their activities in harmony with the municipality’s plans. Municipal planning will assist in developing lands more wisely to serve citizens more effectively, will make the provision of public services less costly, and will achieve a more secure tax base.”
Preparing for “anticipated changes” is the challenge. Twenty years ago, we were in the middle of a housing and development boom and I had dial-up internet. Safe to say Northfield did not anticipate the housing bust, the explosion of the internet, Covid-19 and remote work, electric vehicles and more. Certainly not anticipated in the 2001 Comp Plan, anyway.
Looking ahead twenty years, we need to set goals for the kind of place we want Northfield to be and then bet on how many people will move here, how the climate will change, what technology will be developed, and what work will look like (to name a few) and what Northfield will need to do to accommodate these changes sustainably.
City of the Future as imagined in the Past: What should Future Northfield look like?
How will we get there?
Over on my unofficial Northfield 2045 page, you’ll find links to posts, documents, and information about the process and the content. These are all still taking shape, so stay tuned for updates. My goal is to make the City process as transparent as possible and as clear as possible beyond what may be posted on the official website.
Join the conversation.
Comments are moderated and require a full name for transparency and accountability. I don’t play “invisible dodgeball” where anonymous people throw comments and insults at me. I try to respond to all questions and often like to ask some, too.
What’s good: questions of all sorts, comments from your perspective, thoughtful criticism (which can be very critical) and requests/demands for more information.
What I screen out: anonymous comments, comments without full names or with obvious screen names, personal attacks (on elected officials, city staff, other commenters, or anyone else) and unsubstantiated claims about the intentions of other people or city government.
The Northfield City Council is poised to approve a design for a roundabout plus bike and walk facilities at Jefferson Parkway and Division Street/TH246.
This is a once-in-a-generation large project to begin to reconnect Northfield could have been avoided or been approached incrementally if the City and School District had made more future-thinking, system-level decisions. Perhaps revisiting the history could/should help the City avoid having to spend taxpayers money to fix problems it largely created for itself.
More generally, how should the Council make its decision? Project cost is often the only objectively comparable metric among alternatives, but City staff could make clearer recommendations about why one alternative is preferable based on Northfield policy and data-supported best practices rather than presenting information as if all options are equivalent. Public input is important for preference, but polling and “dot-mocracy” should not determine the outcome of a complex project.
So, let me put a large number of words in the mouths of City staff to imagine what I wish they had said as they write their staff report for the City Council:
City Council Meeting Date: September 3, 2019
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City staff
Subject: Consider Motion authorizing Jefferson Parkway & Trunk Highway (TH) 246 Roundabout Final Design.
Action Requested: Staff Recommends a motion authorizing Jefferson Parkway & TH 246 Roundabout Final Design with Roundabout Design Alternative 2 that will include a pedestrian crossing with bumpout Option 2 design for the high school crossing.
Summary Report:
246/Jefferson Parkway Intersection Control Evaluation
The City initiated the Intersection Control Evaluation study at the intersection of Trunk Highway (TH) 246 and Jefferson Parkway in 2016. The goal and objectives of the intersection study were as follows:
Identify improvements that alleviate peak hour congestion,
Over approximately the last 30-40 years, City land use and transportation decisions have created the problems we are now trying to solve. No single decision caused the significant vehicle congestion during school arrival and dismissal times or the dangerous conditions for people driving, walking, and riding. However, the sum of the approval of residential subdivisions which did not have continuous and connected streets, annexation of land and approval of school site plans without sufficient consideration of how people, especially kids, would reach them has resulted in the problem we now have the opportunity to begin to solve.
Presenting this historical survey before turning to the Intersection Control Evaluation is intended to assist the Council in decision making for this project and in the future by highlighting the consequences of disconnected decision-making.
Jefferson Parkway/TH 246 intersection
History of decisions
South of Woodley Street, the grid street pattern of the older Northfield neighborhoods was abandoned with longer blocks, fewer connecting streets, and many cul de sacs or dead end streets.
The residential subdivisions on either side of TH246, both north and south of Jefferson Parkway were approved without requiring streets to connect outside the subdivision except to major collector streets. Homeowners appreciated the low traffic streets, but the long-term consequences are few opportunities to improve connectivity.
The 2008 Comprehensive Transportation Plan called out this “lack of interconnected neighborhoods” resulting in an “overreliance” on TH246 and Jefferson Parkway.
From the 2008 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The residential subdivision to the west of TH246 was designed with multiple culs de sacs radiating off a single loop (Roosevelt Drive) with no opportunities to connect to surrounding destinations. The only exit is from Roosevelt Drive onto Jefferson Parkway. And, more recent research shows that the cul de sac – collector pattern is less safe than a more grid-like pattern which slows and distributes traffic. Crash data in the 2008 Comprehensive Transportation Plan seems to support this conclusion:
2008 Comprehensive Transportation Plan map showing crashes along Jefferson parkway (red stars for fatal collisions)
The Northfield Public School District’s choices (permitted by the City) are also significant. Locating Bridgewater Elementary School and Northfield Middle School directly south of the Northfield High School resulted in the highly concentrated congestion coming from school-related vehicle trips. Bridgewater is a neighborhood school, but all public school students must travel to the very southmost location of the only high school and middle school in the City. Significant bus traffic as well as students driving and middle school parents chauffeuring their children must pass through the TH246 and Jefferson Parkway intersection every day and within a compressed time period because the City prevented alternative routes through its subdivision decision-making.
The October 2001 Traffic Impact Report for the middle school anticipated increased traffic on Jefferson Parkway from the school and continued residential development. Analyzing this corridor, consultant Yaggy Colby Associates recommended installing the median which now exists saying “will provide more direction for drivers, which will in turn make it a safer corridor” and provide “refuge for pedestrians” crossing the wide street. This choice has proved to make Jefferson more difficult for school buses and large vehicles to access schools as well as significantly more dangerous for people on bikes.
In summary, this project highlights how short-sighted decisions over time have made mobility and access more difficult in this part of the City. Northfield should work to change its development approval process to require street connectivity with particular emphasis on helping people walking and biking and people with disabilities move along and across streets. Major community facilities such as schools should be planned with the developer as to siting and access for all to prevent the need for retrofitting in the future.
250′ to walk, 1.5 miles to drive
Northfield Planning documents
At least since Northfield Middle School opened in 2004, Northfield’s planning documents and adopted policies have clearly supported the position that Northfield will be a place where people can walk, roll, and ride bikes safely and easily, streets will connect, and where the natural environment is protected as we work to mitigate climate change. These plans include:
These policy documents guide staff’s recommendation for the design for the TH246 and Jefferson Parkway intersection and are supplemented by other City bike and walk events such as the 2014 Bikeable Community Workshop as well as current best practices in bike and pedestrian design.
Bikeable community workshop
Current Project
As stated above, staff identified these goals for this project
Identify improvements that alleviate peak hour congestion,
All alternatives in the Feasibility Study recommend constructing a single lane roundabout. This design is recommended for improving vehicle congestion more than other intersection controls such as stop signs or signalized intersections.
Roundabouts smooth out traffic flow by eliminating the need to stop. A single-lane roundabout is also safer for cars based on data showing a 78% reduction in severe crashes and 48% reduction in overall crashes. Roundabouts slow traffic which reduces crash severity and the reduction in conflict points make vehicle crashes less likely.
From SEH traffic study: Roundabouts reduce speed and number of places to hit other things
Staff recommends Council consider collaborating with the Northfield School District after this project is completed to update the Safe Routes to School Plan and encourage schools to adopt Safe Routes to Schools programs to increase walking and biking to further reduce school-generated congestion as well as support City goals for transportation and climate action.
Bicycle and pedestrian safety
All alternatives studied include the single lane roundabout, but the other goals for this project are not addressed equally by all alternatives. Staff strongly recommends selecting Alternative 2 for the following reasons; another choice should require findings of fact to justify a less safe alternative for people walking and biking.
Alternative 2: the recommended option
The peak hour traffic volume and the “no stop” characteristic of roundabouts make the roundabout design challenging to navigate for people walking and riding, especially school children likely to be using the intersection during peak times. Further, roundabouts have been shown to be especially difficult for people with low vision or blindness.
Staff emphasize that for people walking and riding, safety requires more than statistical safety or “no dead people” but includes whether people feel safe as they move through this intersection. The Complete Streets statement to make streets safe for people of “all ages and abilities” requires subjective as well as objective safety to ensure people walking and biking must feel protected from traffic by a barrier or sufficient distance, be able to navigate turns and crossings easily, on a route is free from debris and hazards as well as harassment or crime.
Examples of underpasses from consultant report
Staff opinion is that only grade separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities will meet this standard. The Feasibility Study identified underpasses rather than overpasses as more cost effective; Alternatives 2 & 3 both provide grade separated facilities.
Alternative 3 is not recommended. This alternative does provide grade separated facilities, however, the significant space below grade presents maintenance issues, longer trips when traveling in a single one direction, and social safety issues of blind corners and the need for additional lighting and/or supervision. The Mill Towns State Trail heightens the need to avoid diverting all routes to the center which could require additional wayfinding aids to mark the route for the anticipated increase in bicycle traffic through this intersection.
Staff recommendation for TH246 and Jefferson Parkway
Staff recommends Alternative 2. This option is preferred to Alternative 3 as it is the best option for meeting the standard of a safe route for people of all ages and abilities and furthers Northfield’s policy goals through grade separated facilities and short, direct passage beneath the roadway which will increase perceived safety; this is the only alternative recommended to safely and conveniently reconnect this section of Northfield.
Staff recommendation for the Northfield High School crossing
Staff recommends Option 2 for the High School crossing. Both Options 1 and 2 preserve bicycle access through the curb extensions, but Option 2 provides (1) a shorter crossing distance shown to be safer by allowing more rapid crossing and less vehicle delay, and (2) physical protection for people waiting to cross and riders bicycling through the crossing.
Northfield High School crossing options
Future needs
This project will be a major step toward reconnecting major community destinations, enabling safe walking and bicycling to school, and improving safety for all users of the intersection. However, additional steps will be needed in the future to complete the network including:
change the High School entrance to a right in-right out design to prevent difficulties turning left onto Division Street in heavy traffic in close proximity to this crossing and to simplify the number of turning movements for people biking and walking making this area more predictable and increasing safety.
complete bike and pedestrian planning along Division Street/TH246 from downtown to the City Limits and on Jefferson Parkway from TH3 to Spring Creek Road including connecting routes.
completing policy update recommendations from Toole Design in the bike and pedestrian plan updates.
evaluate planning policy including annexation, community facility siting, linking transportation to land use decisions, and incorporating metrics which measure walkability rather than vehicle movement.
Conclusion in my own voice
City staff are supposed to be the professional experts. As such, they must frame alternatives for the Council and the public using their professional expertise to distinguish options based on how each option will fulfill policy goals and meet safety or performance criteria. For this critically important project, knowing why an option is recommended needs to be articulated. For a project which is needed to fix prior decision-making, it is also important to learn how not to make similar expensive mistakes (in dollars and human life) again.
The voters said “no” to building a new Arena back in November 2018, but the old Arena is still City property, still operated by the City, still barely functional, and whether to fix it still unresolved. But now it is budget season for the City and some choices will need to be made.
The Ice Arena is still a problem
Unfortunately, budget discussions are not as well-publicized as a referendum (indeed, the Council hides beyond the reach of video at the Police Station for budget talks), so in this intermission between the referendum first period and the budget decision second period on the Ice Arena, let’s review what’s happened and consider some questions the Council should answer before spending more money.
In November 2018, about 55% of Northfield voters voted against the ballot question to 45% in favor. Interestingly, the only two precincts with a majority of voters supporting the question were the two college precincts, Ward 1-Precinct 1 (Carleton) and Ward 4-Precinct 2 (Olaf). If you take out the college precincts, the majority opposed was about 60% (click here for the MN Secretary of State results).
While we wait for the next puck to drop at City Hall, conversations I had with people not supporting the referendum last year revealed three general complaints:
The “Civic Center” was really just a hockey facility [and the city was not being transparent and/or honest],
The picture was too rosy, [and the city was not being transparent and/or honest] and,
Wow, that’s a lot of money which could be better spent on other things [and this included a variety of concerns about spending, taxes, and priorities].
Process
In the budget timeline where a preliminary levy must be adopted by September, there is little time for Northfield to correct the process problems for next year, but the City needs to follow a much fairer and more transparent procedure to reach its next long-term decision. Obviously, the City needs help:
This is an understatement
Be deliberate: Resist the urge to act quickly while you take the time to consider a broader range of options for ice in the community and who pays for it. Especially, take the time to (1) develop some financial policy about how the City can budget for the longterm maintenance and replacement of its facilities (any facility, not just the Arena!) before building a new one, and (2) consider how to equitably allocate resources to parks and recreation, and among recreational choices within that allocation.
Eliminate conflicts of interest: The Northfield Ice Arena Advisory Board was a hand-picked group of ice stakeholders from hotel owners (who benefit from the promised increased tourist dollars), to hockey and figure skating leaders (who benefit from the ice), to construction company owners (who could benefit from building the facility), the school district (which benefits by having the city do the heavy financial lifting for its teams).
Seek broader representation from the community including people for whom tax increases pose a real burden not just those who can afford to pay, people who skate and people who don’t, people who play other sports and those who play none, supporters and opponents, the School District, etc. “What Northfield wants (and should pay for)” needs to be assessed by a better cross-section of the community.
Clearly state the costs and risks as well as the projected benefits for any Arena project (and any other project): Large capital projects cost a lot to build, but each project creates the on-going obligation to repair and replace the new facility, road, bridge, etc. Governments generally, not just Northfield, have not been very good about understanding and budgeting for this reality. So the $21M price tag for the the proposed Civic Center was only the projected cost of construction, but did not include the other costs which taxpayers will have to pay over the life of the facility including maintenance and repair, possible operating deficits, change in rates of participation, etc. Smaller plans to repair or remodel should consider the same long-term commitment.
Don’t consider the Ice Arena by itself, but plan for it as part of Northfield’s Parks and Recreation System. The key word here is “system.” Northfield has more than 30 Parks, 2 recreation facilities (outdoor swimming pool and ice arena), and miles of trails.
“How about a referendum just for parks?” came up more than once as voters thought about the 30% of the sales tax revenue which could have been allocated for recreation and parks. Most people said things like parks are important to them and providing recreational opportunities for Northfield was desirable, but the huge amount of money for ice was too much for one activity or just too much.
The City must discuss how to support its park and recreation system in the long term before committing to support a facility for a small group of very expensive sports. Ten years ago, when Gov. Pawlenty unallotted local government aid to Northfield, the Council voted to take money from parks to offset this sudden disappearance of revenue and long term park funding has still not recovered. Now’s the time and a good transition to the policy problems.
Big picture policy questions
Aspiration: If I had to pick just one aspect of Northfield government to change, I’d say: The City needs to stop making decisions on a project by isolated project basis and start considering how it spends money in the context of the overall needs of the city, guided by it adopted policies, and armed with current and relevant data.
The Ice Arena is a stunning example of a single project put before the voters without context, without long-term planning, and without connections to the other priorities in the Strategic Plan, economic development priorities, the Capital Improvement Plan, or the Comprehensive Plan.
The next attempt to address the ice arena should improve the process and ask (at least) these policy questions before getting to a specific project (or no project at all).
Big question 1: Equity and access: Is Northfield’s parks, trails, and recreation system (taken as a whole) equitable and accessible to all Northfield residents?
Parks, for example, should be located in places which are within easy (walking) distance of all residents. A look at the map shows the northern part of the city is less well connected to trails, has parks which are hidden behind homes with little street frontage (creating the perception of private space), and large playing fields only at Greenvale Park Elementary School (likely to disappear when the new school is built).
City of Northfield Parks Map
For major facilities like the outdoor pool and ice arena, the question is less about location than whether the facility supports activities able to be enjoyed the broadest cross section of the community. Swimming is a basic safety skill (and one unequally distributed) as well as cool recreation, so providing access to a pool (which hosts swim lessons via community education) seems like it could tick the right boxes, but the City should consider what its system and facilities supports now and what it should do.
Big question 2: Public facilities for school and private sports: The largest users of the Ice Arena are other organizations: the Northfield School District, the Northfield Hockey Association, and the Northfield Skating School. What, if any, role should the City of Northfield play in building and maintaining public facilities for non-public activities? Compare Sechler Park or Spring Creek Park; these facilities are also heavily used by baseball and soccer associations, but the use is seasonal, costs are lower, the parks include trails and playgrounds, the soccer association pays for maintenance and no fee is charged to visit the parks. What policy can the City develop to rationally guide choices about public facilities for non-public uses including capital costs, operating expenses, and the amount of time the facility must be available for public use?
A better example of a public private partnership (Photo: City of Northfield)
Big question 3: Funding:What proportion of Northfield’s annual budget should be committed to parks, trails, and recreation and how will the City determine this level? Northfield’s Parks, Open Space, and Trails Plan includes dollar estimates for capital improvements for each of Northfield’s 30+ parks (trails and maintenance not included) totaling between $7-10 million in 2008 dollars (now about $8.2-11.7 million). How will Northfield plan and budget for the life cycle costs of its parks and facilities, not just their initial development? After Northfield considers how it will partner with private groups, how will those groups participate in the construction, operation, and risk of these facilities?
Game on
It’s probably clear I don’t think a City-supported ice arena is a wise use of taxpayer money using any model like the current one. Maybe there are ways to build and maintain indoor ice in Northfield which shield the City from risk, are financially and environmentally sustainable, and are as equitable as possible. But Northfield hasn’t even started to identify those ways yet. All the City has now is this list:
From the Strategic Plan update
How is the City going to choose from this list?
Tax dollars should support activities and facilities which (taken as a whole) serve all Northfielders with a special effort to ensure access for underserved groups and areas. So I am concerned about the amount of money to construct and/or maintain an ice arena which serves relatively few people overall, is largely scheduled for use by other organizations, and is purpose-built for a few expensive sports (Public skating takes place at lunchtime during the week and 1.5 hours on Sunday afternoon). And I’m even more concerned the City will decide and budget by the seat of their breezers.
“Jesus Christ, what a friggin’ nightmare” (Image: Star Tribune)
I’m a hockey fan. I grew up with a Rangers fan father, saw the short-lived Kansas City Scouts lose many games, watched the Flyers on (black and white) TV with my husband before we were married, received Flyers season tickets as a wedding present, had a subscription to the Hockey News for a decade, shivered in the Northfield arena while my daughter played Mite and U10 hockey, and now go to Gophers Womens Hockey games. No matter how much I like the game, I think the proposed referendum to finance the new ice arena via a sales tax and $17.8 million in new debt is not a responsible choice for the City no matter how great a game it is.
The issue on the table and the ballot.
On Tuesday, June 19, 2018, the City Council will vote to approve this ballot question:
Sell $17.8 million in bonds (debt financing) to raise the cash to finance construction of the arena.
Pay annual principal & interest of approximately $1.5 million for the 20 year life of the bonds (that’s about $30 million in debt service payments).
Create a new sales tax plus a motor vehicle excise tax to offset about 30% of the debt service payments.
Bottom line: Property taxes will need to rise to pay for the $1 million of debt service not offset by the sales tax; the cost of buying things will rise as business owners pass the cost of the sales tax on to consumers.
Dundas is also planning on asking its residents to approve the sales tax; the Northfield Council will choose between two resolutions – one which makes the project dependent upon Dundas voters’ approval and the other which is silent on that issue.
One view is to relax and let the voters decide; if a majority of Northfield (and maybe Dundas) voters decide they want to pay for this project, then so be it. If they agree with me, then it will be voted down.
I’d like to argue, however, that putting the issue on the ballot at all presumes the city is prepared to follow through on the results and being willing to take on a significant financial obligation (risk) that is disproportionate relative to other important city projects, benefits relatively few people, and does not appear to support the city’s declared policies on equity, inclusion, and good fiscal management.
This is a huge amount of money
Not only is $17.8 million siginificant on its own, it is also near or more than many other important projects, so compare this to:
Schools: The 2017 Referendum asked for $23.5 million for replacing Greenvale Park Elementary School; the bond levy which also included a new high school failed. The Greenvale Park replacement may be on the November ballot along with the ice arena. So, the proposed ice arena will cost about as much as an elementary school.
NCRC (1999): Approved by (a tiny proportion of) voters in a special election in 1999, the NCRC cost was $2.7 million. Being approved by voters does not make a project a good deal; the facility was intended to be largely self-supporting, yet the City has been subsidizing the facility and looking for ways to decrease its obligations from renegotiating leases to selling the building to tenants.
Soccer (2002): The Spring Creek Soccer fields were budgeted at $150,000; the Northfield Soccer Association developed and paid for the fields on land donated by the City. The NSA also pays for field maintenance. Between the in-house and traveling teams, soccer dwarfs hockey participation, includes many more from usually underserved groups.
Outdoor Pool (2006): The new pool cost between $2-3 million financed by EDA lease revenue bonds (no referendum required). The pool is intended to be revenue neutral, but income from pool fees and concessions does not cover operating costs.
Northfield Public Library expansion (2015): The addition and remodeling of the Northfield Public Library cost approximately $3 million. $1 million was allocated from the City General Fund, additional money from the Library Gift Fund, but about 1/3 was raised privately by the Friends and Foundation of the NPL.
These are not apples to apples comparisons. Like the ice arena, the pool has use charges intended to offset costs, but Northfield has multiple pools which extend the swimming season year-round. The Safety Center and Library are core public services which do not charge fees at the point of use and are intended to be funded by taxes. The soccer (and baseball) facilities are both city parks, but the sports organization pays on-going costs and passes costs along to players. However, such a large bonding request plus instituting a new sales tax makes me pause to ask what else Northfield can do for the same amount of money and how does this recreation project serve Northfield better than others, like the soccer fields, which cost so much less (but serve more people)?
What else could we spend $17.8 million on?
Northfield has other needs it has identified where $17.8 million could be very useful and, I’d say, are either significantly more important to the community than an ice arena or yield a higher return on investment. Here are three:
246/Jefferson Parkway intersection (and related transportation connections): Northfield has studied this intersection and tentatively planned a roundabout at this location. The City applied to MnDOT for funding, but did not receive it in the last round of funding. The City has long recognized the street network in this area does not work. Driving to the Middle School, Bridgewater and High School is bad; walking and biking are almost impossible yet it serves three schools (thousands of children), the NCRC (seniors), and soccer fields (500 youth soccer players. I’ve already had much (critical) to say about this intersection and the history of planning decisions which have put much pressure on this link. From choices made when planning the Middle School (Schools and where to put them) to more recent efforts to improve safety (Still Not a Safe Route to School), to looking to change the conversation about streets from vehicle traffic to community connections (Reimagining Woodley).
Jefferson Parkway/TH 246 intersection
Mill Towns Trail through Northfield (and fixing the segment to Dundas): Building the Mill Towns Trail has been inching along for decades, but Northfield could kickstart things by completing the segment through town from the Cannon River to the east and with a better connection into the heart of downtown. The trail is planned to cross 246 at Jefferson Parkway so it dovetails with that improvement. There is a whole subdivision of economic development literature devoted to “trail-based economic development” recognizing the impact a trail can have (like the Root River Trail). Would the tourism impact of a trail be a better deal?
Mill Towns Trail proposed alignment
Flood control through downtown and river enhancement: Recent flooding has highlighted how vulnerable downtown is. The Cannon River and the riverfront are prized assets cited for defining Northfield’s sense of place (and its place in history), as economic drivers, as recreational delights, and in need of enhancement, protection, and redevelopment (like in the Strategic Plan).
Questions the Council has not asked
Perhaps most surprising of the Council discussion to date is how few questions have been asked about the project. Councilors who are usually vocal when it comes to spending money have said little. Here are questions I’m still hoping will be asked at tonight’s meeting:
How much debt is too much? This project asks Northfield to issue a large amount of debt; I have not yet heard a discussion of how this fits into the overall financial plan for the city.
Has Northfield developed a plan and budget for maintaining and replacing facilities as they age? Northfield has waited for facilities to nearly or completely fail, then made decisions in haste. The current arena has been inadequate for years, the swimming pool was leaking and had to be shut down for a season forcing quick replacement decisions, and the Safety Center was overcrowded and subject to flooding requiring quick action.
What happens if the naming rights and fundraising aren’t as successful as planned?Current financial planning depends on advertising, naming rights, and private fundraising. Will the project depend on a certain amount of money being raised before ground is broken like the skatepark?
What happens if the projected revenue does not cover costs? Will the City subsidize the arena as it does the pool? How much is it willing to pay?
Who pays for the Riverview Drive street extension to the arena? An extension of Riverview Drive to reach the service area for the arena is on the plans, but not in the budget.
Are the additional spending and lodging tax revenue projected a good return on investment? The economic boost projected because of the increased ability to host tournaments and other events is not being compared to other economic development efforts the city might make, the amount generated by other city attractions (like bike trails, for example) nor does it directly help pay for the debt.
Why should we pay this much money to improve our other parks? There is a red herring in the logic of this project where the ice arena is being touted as being a way we can pay for on-going park maintenance because 30% of the funds may be used for other recreation spending. There are other, much cheaper, ways to manage our park and trail system without spending the 70% on an ice arena. If funding parks is a priority, there are better ways.
November
Obviously, I’m voting no and urge fellow taxpayers to think hard about how our City government allocates our tax dollars.
2004 Jamboree – I bought warmer clothes to watch U10 hockey because the arena was delapidated 15 years ago; Northfield could have planned better for improvement or replacement.
TIGER supporters would probably agree that Trunk Highway 3 is a 4 lane “traffic sewer” through the middle of Northfield affecting land use, deterring bicycle and pedestrian crossing, and dividing the east and west sides of town. Since this is also the picture drawn by the Council-adopted Comprehensive Plan (and other plans and policies I get tired of listing for those Council members who ignorantly or willfully avoid them), their understanding is well-grounded in the city’s public policy.
The City has been implementing the policies by adopting more detailed policies (like the Complete Streets policy and Safe Routes to School Plan) and following through on smaller improvements such as filling gaps in the sidewalk network (despite the failure on Maple Street) in annual street projects. But, TH3 remains a big obstacle. The 2009 Multimodal Integration Study (which involved collaboration among City staff, elected officials, various City boards and business owners) identified several grade-separated “concepts” which could provide better access across TH3/TH19 and subsequently form the basis of a grant application. The TIGER grant application selected one of these and the Council approved the application…and so on.
Here are my questions about the project itself (in no particular order):
Costs of retrofitting: This project builds capacity for non-motorized transportation which has not only been excluded from transportation planning until quite recently but made substantially more difficult by projects like the Highway 3 expansion. What amount is reasonable to remedy a problem created by a mono-modal transportation project (and how can gradual improvement be added back into the transportation planning and budgeting in the future)? When answering this question, try to identify the ways in which government subsidizes automobile travel.
Cost and value of completion vs. cancellation: The state and federal government are spending money on this project; in addition to the financial contribution, what value is there in completing this project on time, honoring our commitment, and developing good working relationships with the agencies? When answering this question, map how transportation dollars are allocated to local government from other levels of government.
How does this project link to other bicycle/pedestrian facilities? Does building this link help increase the usefulness of those facilities? What other future improvements will further integrate this link into the network?
Compared to other projects of similar scope/complexity, are the bids reasonable? This is another way of asking whether the grant application underestimated the cost and/or complexity of the project (and that we can believe the bid numbers are the “right” ones).
Downstream effects: This project will provide jobs, help increase value in the neighborhoods most directly served, perhaps stimulate development at the stalled Crossings development as well as providing Northwest Northfield residents with additional access to jobs and services. What are these worth?
Yes, the project costs a lot of money and more money than anticipated. But determining whether it is “too much” should depend on a thoughtful discussion of how the trail serves the long-term transportation goals, what contribution this project makes to future projects, and how we want to build accessibility and equity into the system.
I would like to hear the Council discuss and reach a shared understanding (if not agreement) about the policy perspective adopted by the City which seeks to address transportation beyond cars and maintain and improve the transportation system in ways which serve the entire community. It’s a big subject which could encompass everything from walking to air quality to storm water to freight to land use to economic development…but the conversation should start and providing for non-automobile connections is one place to do it.
If a majority of the Council believes the current adopted policy positions are misguided, then change the guiding policy with community participation. Don’t get to the point of decision on projects and try to dismantle the policy one vote at a time.
Capital planning should not follow the Field of Dreams model
Tonight at the Council worksession, they’ll be discussing the Capital Improvement Plan. I believe the CIP is the single most important tool the City has…and Northfield’s, while greatly improved over the last few years, is still not what it could be. The goal is to plan for and schedule projects to ensure the city is not spending money on things which cost more to maintain than they return on the investment and that the city can identify the revenue to cover the initial costs and the upkeep.
The City, as part of the CIP review, should:
Inventory what we already have, then develop ways to present this to the Council and public which are clear, not misleading and continually updated (surely someone can come up with great data visualizations for municipal planning and spending). Northfield’s Councilmembers should have flashcards so they could answer (in round, ballpark numbers):
How much do we have (e.g. square feet of street, lineal feet of sewer, number of buildings, etc.)?
What are the (annual, 10-year, etc.) maintenance costs?
When do those costs come due (how old are those buildings, streets, etc.)?
What is the revenue stream to cover those costs (general fund, utility fees, etc.)?
Prioritize projects because there will not be enough money to do everything. Here’s where the Council should be reviewing the long-range plans (like the Comprehensive Plan and its progeny) to remind themselves of priorities which have already been established, updating those plans by gathering citizen input and making the tough choices about what to allocate money to do including both immediate needs and longer term goals for improvement. Policies and plans can help put individual spending choices in a larger context and (one hopes) avoid duplication and increase strategic spending.
The process needs to be part education (Council needs to answer the questions above then convey the picture to the public) and part strategic planning and spending. Not easy. Good luck tonight, Council.
“MnDOT recognizes the impact Hwy. 3 has on the divide between the two halves of the city. They want to see this project happen”
Public Works Director Joe Stapf was quoted as saying in the Northfield News. MNDoT has demonstrated their recognition by agreeing to fund 80% of the cost of the TIGER trail over the original estimate currently estimated at about $600,000.
Wow. The money is very helpful, of course, but I’m really more impressed with the rationale which is the clearest statement of a change of philosophy at MNDoT I could imagine.
But back to the money. Grant funding has its problems, certainly, and is probably worth a blog post itself. Biggest problem is the risk evaluation – my sense is that projects are chosen for grant applications not because they are considered essential and would be funded by the local government anyway, but because if we win the grant lottery we’ll get free money for a one-off special project. But grants, like tax breaks and statutes, are also tools to carry out policy by awarding grants to particular projects, the Federal government picks what it wants to encourage (but that’s the ideal – see another TIGER criticism at Strong Towns of the Feds not applying their own policy rationally).
The TIGER grant project, according to the grant guidelines,
“is multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional or otherwise challenging to fund through existing programs. The TIGER program enables DOT to use a rigorous process to select projects with exceptional benefits, explore ways to deliver projects faster and save on construction costs, and make investments in our Nation’s infrastructure that make communities more livable and sustainable.”
Northfield’s trail is multi-modal (bike/pedestrian – and “multi-modal” really just means “not cars), multi-jurisdictional (city, state and railroad) and it is challenging to fund given MNDoT’s previous planning and construction of TH3 and by adding value to the core of the city and connecting the two sides of town, I believe it does make Northfield more liveable and sustainable with a very small bit of actual infrastructure construction. The faster, cheaper requirement seems to have been negated by the multi-jurisdictional component, but it’s still moving pretty quickly for a complicated project.
I fully accept the Strong Towns criticism of the teeny tiny amount of funding for Safe Routes to School or Complete Streets or multi-modal TIGER projects – yes, the grants and special programs (can) miss the larger point that Federal funding of massive highway expansion and car-only planning (along with mortgage interest deductions and more policies) has massively contributed to the problem we are now trying to solve (or at least mitigate).
However, Federal transportation funding will not be revised or rescinded quickly nor will attitudes be changed overnight (and however much I like the Hatch/Baucus proposal to start tax reform with a blank slate, I cannot believe it will happen that way). So, for the short term, I’m in favor of these programs to help raise consciousness, publicize noteworthy projects, and gradually change the state of transportation in the US. I’m in favor of this project in particular because it is so well grounded in city policy and earlier projects (read the history in the grant application) and not just plucked out of the air. MNDoT’s decision to help with funding underwrites this gradual shift in design and planning and gives Northfield a little boost in the right direction. Not perfect, but a good step forward.
Now we wait for the bids and the Council must act to move forward, but in the meantime:
The Elk Run Biobusiness Park is a project which keeps me shaking my head at the hubris of the Pine Island officials who have supported this “if you build it, they will come” development debacle and the MNDoT logic which threw millions (about $45 of them) of tax dollars at the interchange serving, as yet, nothing.
Latest development: There’s still no development! Not in the business park, anyway. In June, MNDoT held a public open house in Pine Island about its diverging diamond interchange on MN52. Problem 1: MNDoT plans to close direct access to 52 which will isolate existing businesses in order to serve the businesses which might inhabit the biobusiness park some day. Problem 2: Pine Island bet heavily with MNDoT; the deal for the interchange included promises to create 20 biobusiness jobs a year starting in 2013 until 2021 which, if not created, will cost Pine Island $20,000 for each job which doesn’t exist. Pine Island is trying to negotiate so MNDoT won’t call in those chips.
There are two problems – (1)”ponzi scheme” (followed up with a reference to a state fraud hotline) grabs attention while preventing rational discussion; (2) Mr Cashman has misunderstood the Strong Towns mission and, consequently, how it might apply to the TIGER trail project.
I joined the board of Strong Townsbecause I wanted to help broadcast its’ mission “to support a model for growth that allows America’s towns to become financially strong and resilient.”
What is the Growth Ponzi Scheme? It is not identified simply by the funding source of a project. Mr Cashman cited the $1.1 million federal grant funding as definitive, but grants (or other intergovernmental transfer of funds) do not make a project part of a ponzi scheme. Rather, it’s the these “mechanisms of growth” taken as a larger-scale pattern of post World War II approach to growth:
Transfer payments between governments: where the federal or state government makes a direct investment in growth at the local level, such as funding a water or sewer system expansion.
Transportation spending: where transportation infrastructure is used to improve access to a site that can then be developed.
Public and private-sector debt: where cities, developers, companies, and individuals take on debt as part of the development process, whether during construction or through the assumption of a mortgage.
Strong Towns stresses seeking a higher return on the infrastructure we have already built, capturing value from growth which has occurred and adding value to existing neighborhoods before massive spending in search of potential growth. “Intergovernmental transfers” like federal money for the St. Croix Bridge, tax abatement programs, local government aid help create the illusion of getting a really great deal in the short term, but disguise the long term obligations or undermine the potential tax revenue.
Now let’s ratchet down the rhetoric and think about the TIGER Trail. What would a Strong Towns analysis of this project look like and how could we rationally discuss the project, including the increase in project cost?
The best option for ensuring safe, convenient travel across Highway 3 for bikes, pedestrians, or people with limited mobility was lost (despite much citizen work) back in 2004 when the highway was reconstructed before MNDOT’s context-sensitive phase and before Northfield had any policy in place (like Complete Streets, or Safe Routes to School) which would have helped design the roadway and intersections to enhance the safe access across the highway.
Next best option: retrofit. To increase the safety, perception of “cross-ability” and non-motorized access from the West Side to downtown, schools, the pool, and any other destination on the east side of the road, Northfield could retrofit the highway itself, but this would be considerably more expensive than the TIGER trail. For comparison, MNDoT reconstructed Highway 169 through downtown St Peter in 2010 at a cost of $16.6 million to add bumpouts to reduce crossing distance, street trees for traffic calming and stormwater, etc., as well as improving traffic flow.
The TIGER trail bypasses Highway 3 by using the existing underpass and routing the trail along a city street. By using the existing infrastructure to add transportation options to further connect established areas of the city, this project helps build resiliency for a Strong Towns.
Looking at the bigger picture, increased bike and pedestrian access to downtown reduces the demand for parking which helps leverage existing parking – a direct tie in to the current Downtown Parking Conversation. The trail will provide a safe, non-motorized link for a part of town with a concentration of lower income housing. The City had already agreed to add a trail along the Cannon River by The Crossing site; this project includes that segment. The trail helps carry out the goals to capitalize on the riverfront by linking to the River Walk. With an aging population, adding mobility options helps Northfield “age in place.”
In short, the TIGER trail furthers Northfield’s policy goals for more transportation options, enhances existing neighborhoods, and reuses existing infrastructure to do it. The trail was supported by many community groups as part of the grant application. It’s a good project.
But what about the increase in project cost? Nobody likes this sort of surprise and Mayor Graham is right: “when do we say ‘ouch’ and when do we say ‘uncle'” when deciding how much is too much? This, really, is the question we should be asking and answering with reference to Northfield’s guiding policies, expected value-added by the project, and short term budget limits.
We should be weighing at least these issues:
The TIGER trail project contributes to building a Strong Town which helps fulfill Northfield’s policy goals and adds value to the core of the City.
The project is funded by a competitive, significant federal grant. Northfield gets positive recognition for demonstrating we can do the project, success helps Northfield with future grants and not completing the project is likely to adversely affect future grant possibilities.
What allowance should be made for unforseen difficulty? It’s a difficult project with multiple jurisdictions (railroad, MNDoT, private property owners, FHWA), difficult topography and a speedy federal timeline as well as the usual unknowns like soil quality, construction bids, etc. There have been completely unforeseeable difficulties such as needing to change a retaining wall design (with increased cost) because of Duluth’s experience with flooding.
The Council needs to ignore the headline grabbing rhetoric, learn more about what helps build a Strong Town, examine its policies and then determine how much is too much.
I’ve never been to Vancouver, BC, although it’s been on my “to go” list for a long time. Now, even more, I’d like to visit. Why? Their transportation policy (and the cross country skiing in BC is excellent).
Here in Northfield, we’ve struggled to make even small changes in policy to help Northfield grow in ways which encourage active transportation, productive land use, and a viable transit system. Even so, every policy gets challenged (or simply ignored) when a new small decision needs to be made. Complete Streets? Great, until a street project must be approved. GreenStep Cities and sustainability? Wonderful, but seldom considered. Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan? Super, until we try to take steps to implement it.
Vancouver, however, thinks big and has since 1997 when it approved an influential Transportation Plan which prioritized – rank ordered – modes of transportation. Vancouver has just approved Transportation 2040 which affirms the priorities for moving people (for moving goods, etc. there are separate rankings): Walking, Cycling, Transit, Taxi/Commercial Transit/Shared Vehicles, and Private Automobiles.
The hierarchy is intended to help ensure that the needs and safety of each group of road users are sequentially considered when decisions are made, that each group is given proper consideration, and that the changes will not make existing conditions worse for more vulnerable road users, such as people on foot, bicycle, and motorcycle. Each time a new roadway is designed or an existing one changed, opportunities for improving walking and cycling will be reviewed…This is a general approach and does not mean that users at the top of the list will always receive the most beneficial treatment on every street. In highly constrained urban environments, it is not always possible to provide the ideal facilities for all users’ needs.
Even better, Vancouver links transportation and land use (“Use land use to support shorter trips and sustainable transportation choices”), does not flinch from saying the goal is to reduce auto-dependence (“Manage the road network efficiently to improve safety and support a gradual reduction in car dependence. Make it easier to drive less”) and understands that the economic vitality and emergency response must also be part of the overall plan (“Support a thriving economy and Vancouver’s role as a major port and Asia-Pacific gateway while managing related environmental and neighbourhood impacts. Maintain effective emergency response times for police, fire, and ambulance”).
Here in Northfield, we need to try to be more Vancouverish (at a scale appropriate for a community of our size/location) for the long term health (financial, physical, environmental) of the city.
