http://northfieldnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=26&SubSectionID=63&ArticleID=20987&TM=55127.93

Thanks, Bruce, for following up on this.

This has been a very interactive with the community comp plan process; the previous one i experienced was also; I actually think the public part of this was better than last time.

HOWEVER……. when we get into the implementation, i.e. putting our public monies where our public mouths have been, we don’t do as well. Or the city council doesn’t do as well; the citizens sure tried. The staff is maybe in the toughest position, having to balance all components of a street project like Woodley, and working with the unmovable county staff; but I haven’t heard a staff presentation that speaks to the council about the intent/spirit of the Comp Plan.

We have, in this Comp Plan , as well as the last, emphasized the “livability of small towns” nature that the residents wish to preserve. Have you heard this desired quality ,as a guiding principle of our community plan, discussed by either the city staff or council at any of the Woodley meetings?
I have heard issues of safety for pedestrians and bicycles brought up numerous times, but I have not heard the intrinsic desired nature of the community’s life, as expressed by the overarching goals of our comprehensive plan, brought into the discussion.

I had thought that statutorally a city was BOUND by the specificity and intent of their Comp Plan; I’m sure there is case law on this issue.

I think this latest “wrench” in what has been a very flawed process may be fortuitous, if there was strong leadership to take advantage of the opening. Let the loss of monies expended so far be a reminder to all, council and citizens, that it does little good to talk and plan if those planning efforts are constantly set aside in the name of expediency.

I hope the people who have spoken so strongly on wanting this to remain a neighborhood street, within the city limits, will continue and even get stronger, at the new public hearing.

If not, then what is the purpose of the long careful planning and all the citizen input, on the current Comp Plan process.

Aren’t we supposed to be putting “Our fingerprints on Northfield Blueprints” ??????????

Following Kiffi’s comment, here’s what the N News said 24 hours ago

Excerpted from a Nfld News Web site article

Woodley project stalls

A procedural error has derailed the Street widening project yet again.

Al Roder said the city’s attorney had just discovered a problem in the process.

Minnesota law requires the city to hold another public hearing on matters where residents are assessed for improvements, before they’re reconsidered.

Last week, councilors authorized the project, which runs from Prairie Street to Jefferson Parkway. But without a four-fifths vote, the resolution wasn’t actually passed.

The issue came to the Council Monday, when they unanimously voted for the project.

Roder said a second public hearing will be held Monday, Oct. 1. The council will then vote on the project for a third time.

Roder says the delay, shouldn’t affect the project’s start, set for August 2008.

The engineers kept saying that the Sept.10 meeting was the latest the council could vote, without endangering the whole process, because of the timeing of the right-of-way acquisitions……….So was that wholly accurate, or allowing themselves a little bit of time for more possible procedural flukes, which…here’s another one!

City Administrator Roder made it sound, in the NFNews, as if this was “no problemo”, but I’m not so sure. If there was no more wiggle-room time, then maybe the project is stymied for now, which means maybe the city could consider taking the road back from the county, IF IF IF the city can fund the project ( Street Reclamation Bonding) and then the council could better answer the needs of its residents. (The county seems to have a hard time recognizing that we are citizens of the county also).

What are those Prayer Ladies praying for ??????

The plan as approved MAY be safer than the existing roadway, which everyone recognizes is hazardous to all forms of life, motorized and nonmotorized. However, the many problems with a mixed pedestrian/bicycle sidepath with a dozen or so crossings (single-family/multiple residence driveways and cross roads)could possibly still be addressed, and in a way that could allow for lowering the speed limit from 40 to 30 mph through the entire project area.

There is a state statute which explicitly gives local units of government the ability to set speed limits WITHOUT MNDOT CONDUCTING ANY ENGINEERING OR SAFETY STUDY ON ROADWAYS DESIGNATED AS BIKEWAYS.

MN Statute 160.263 (Bicycle Lanes and Ways) reads as follows:
“Subd. 2. Powers of political subdivisions. The governing body of any political subdivision may by ordinance or resolution:
(1) designate any roadway or shoulder or portion thereof under its jurisdiction as a bicycle lane or bicycle route;
(2) designate any sidewalk or portion thereof under its jurisdiction as a bicycle path provided that the designation does not destroy a pedestrian way or pedestrian access;
(3) develop and designate bicycle paths;
(4) designate as bikeways all bicycle lanes, bicycle routes, and bicycle paths.
Subd. 3. Designation. (a) A governing body designating a bikeway under this section may:
(1) designate the type and character of vehicles or other modes of travel which may be operated on a bikeway, provided that the operation of such vehicle or other mode of travel is not inconsistent with the safe use and enjoyment of the bikeway by bicycle traffic;
(2) establish priority of right-of-way on the bicycle lane or bicycle path and otherwise regulate the use of bikeways as it deems necessary; and
(3) paint lines or construct curbs or establish other physical separations to exclude the use of the bikeways by vehicles other than those specifically permitted to operate thereon.
(b) The designating governing body may, after public hearing, prohibit through traffic on any highway or portion thereof designated as a bicycle lane or bicycle route, except that through traffic may not be prohibited on a trunk highway. The designating governing body shall erect and maintain official signs giving notice of the regulations and priorities established under this subdivision and shall mark all bikeways with appropriate signs. Marking and signing of bikeways by the designating governing body shall be in conformance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Subd. 4. Speed on street with bicycle lane. Notwithstanding section 169.14, subdivision 5, the governing body of any political subdivision, by resolution or ordinance and without an
engineering or traffic investigation, may designate a safe speed for any street or highway under its authority upon which it has established a bicycle lane; provided that such safe speed shall
not be lower than 25 miles per hour. The ordinance or resolution designating a safe speed is effective when appropriate signs designating the speed are erected along the street or highway,
as provided by the governing body.”

In other words, get the bikes off sidepaths, where they really shouldn’t be anyway, get them ON the road on safe, marked and signed bike lanes (or possibly even shared use lanes), and the speed limit could be lowered to 30 mph essentially overnight. In addition, the 8-foot sidepath could then be replaced with a 5-foot sidewalk, with a narrower boulevard as well, and the overall footprint of the project could be narrowed a bit.

It doesn’t seem impossible to accomplish this yet, but then I’m not encouraged by anything I’ve seen in this process thus far. Help us out here, Galen!

“Widening roads to overcome congestion is like loosening our belt to solve obesity” from John Norquist, former Mayor of Milwaukee, and now President of the Congress for New Urbanism (as of 2005)

That East Woodley Street needs to be made safer is not the argument. Not only does the window above my kitchen sink overlook Woodley, I am also a walker and biker. I know how treacherous Woodley is and the increasing number of people using it. The argument is saving our majestic trees while improving Woodley.

I want to thank Mayor Lee Lansing, Councilmen Arnie Nelson and Jim Pokorney for voting in support of the concerns of the people in our neighborhood even though this is not their neighborhood.

Was it not obvious to the planner, while drawing up a plan beyond what is necessary to solve Woodley’s problem, that the people living here would not want to lose their huge, centuries old trees? Why was the plan drawn up, monies secured and a time table finalized without this being a consideration?

Darlene Hand

By the way, I see kids riding bikes on Woodley all the time… kids getting places– not just “riding.” Housing extends pretty far out that way, now.

My thought, Galen: All paved roads should be bike/pedestrian safe– build for the future.

Woodley is a county road, and the county doesn’t care about
pedestrians and bikes. They actually can’t designate the road
as urban. And their priority is moving cars as quickly/safely
as they can from one point to another, which for most roads
that head through the countryside is more appropriate than it
is in town.

Yet the funds we receive are, I believe, from the feds via
the county, so if the county cedes Woodley to the city, we
lose federal the money, and we don’t want that. Therefore the
county is involved, for worse and also for better.

There was a special meeting on August 23rd in which a lot of
this came out more clearly than it had before. During this
meeting there was a fascinating “exchange” between Galen
Malecha and Jim Pokorney in which Jim made a couple of points:

1) The county hadn’t seemed to him to be very collaborative
2) He didn’t understand why the county seemed exclusively
focused on motorized vehicles

Galen shot back aggressively saying:

1) That we should trust our engineers, who thought the road
had to be designed as in the plans, or fire them (in effect
declaring the very sort of ultimatum that illustrates
Jim’s point about the county seeming anti-collaborative)

2) Galen also said, in front of a room full of people who
live near county roads and expressed concern about being
able to walk and bike, that if the county built paths,
sidewalks, or bike lanes, into its roads, “nobody would
use them.”

Galen looked pretty bad, but I think he, deep down, had some
points that were correct. In fact most county roads don’t go
through urban areas. So (2) is naturally correct for most
stretches of county road. Also, there’s a difference between
trusting one’s engineers and requiring them to be less aloof,
and asking them to talk with us, explain things (and explain
them again - and again). When I take a car to get fixed, my
service station doesn’t hand me a bill and say “pay us to do
this work or fire us.” Even though they’re the experts, they
take the time to explain things to me, get input, and possibly
try things they hadn’t thought of. As we all know, experts
disagree. Best practice varies across time and location. So
while Galen is right that we should trust experts, experts
need to understand their role, and his comments didn’t help
that process along. They were actually quite divisive - even
hostile.

It’s a shame that Galen came off the way he did, and shot back
at Jim Pokorney. There was a chance there for a meeting of
minds.

Richard Goerwitz

We had a car land in our yard, barely missing a tree and the corner of our house. Thankfully there were no children out playing at the time. He missed the curve and was going way too fast. Crossing Woodley is treacherous because many drivers do not obey the speed limit as they come into town.

My children were bussed to Sibley, we lived within blocks and they could have walked, but because of the dangers of Woodley, the schools bused them. I don’t know if this is still happening but it is an indication that not just a few of us found the street dangerous.

I know side walks are an issue too but consider the fact that these kids being bused to Sibley, had to walk in the street (Woodley) during the winter to get to the bus stop. Who was doing the thinking here?

I know parents have requested that these speed issues be addressed and I would like to see, on paper, exactly what will be done so that it is integrated into the plan to slow traffic, before the project starts and the money just happens to run out before it is implemented.

I do agree that the eastern part of the street, the way it is now, is not safe either, but lets not raise the probability that we will be bringing even faster traffic into town on a street that does pass through a neighborhood.

If anyone’s in the mood to spin this dross into gold, though, maybe this delay can be put to good use. Could a senior administrator charge staff with developing, in the time between now and the 9/10 council meeting, a plan which incorporates the many excellent suggestions and recommendations which seemed to have been embraced by both members of the audience and of the council (real bike *lanes*, not hazardous bike sidepaths, being preeminent among them for me)? At Thursday’s meeting, the engineers took a firm (not to say obstinate) stance against any further modifications to the plan, arguing that any such modifications would cause further delays to the project itself. Lo and behold, the fates intervened to create a delay and some time to fix things.

In addition, maybe the time before the next council meeting could be used constructively by the city and the county to iron out some of their differences with respect to speed limits, road width, etc.

Perhaps I’m trying too hard to see the tipped-over glass as half full, here, but maybe just maybe the meeting on the 10th could consider a revised plan which would get *all* of the councilmen’s approval.

Plans for Woodley project are not approved; Special meeting vote Thursday night fails
http://northfieldnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=21&SubSectionID=44&ArticleID=20842

A 4-3 vote by city councilors Thursday that appeared to give the go-ahead to the widening of East Woodley Street, didn’t have enough votes after all. Road projects in which 35 percent or more of affected residents are assessed for the improvements have strict requirements. One of them includes approving preparation of a project’s plans and specifications by a four-fifths majority. That means six of the seven council members needed to approve the resolution. City officials realized the oversight Friday morning.

Go out, and take a look at those stakes. They are WAY UP on the sides of the road.

This is going to be a BIG WIDE monster…

It is going to be right up in peoples yards, and then some. Lots of trees coming out.

I will try to get some pictures this weekend.

-J

A resolution [any legislative action ] by a body operating under Robert’s Rules can reverse themselves as follows: [this is NOT official... but it close and better than you might get from some around here who like to read their own comments

1) A motion to Recind may be appropriate - but me thinks a Motion to...

2) Reconsider is what were looking at here. Recind merely makes the action un-actionable - While, "Reconsidering" does just that... allows voters to reconsider their vote and allows for a restart from ground zero.

I'm sure there's a mavin or mavinette in touch with God who can better explain. Perhaps not.

Nonetheless to "Reconsider" requires one of the prevailing votes [in this case that would be one of the three who voted NO] - to Move To Reconsider Resolution number xxxxxxxxxx.

That motion would require a A SECOND. Whether from the prevailing three or not… I’m not sure.

Assuming then it is seconded… [is there any doubt?] the proposition is put to a revote and those of the public who might be hoping for forward movement would “pray” that at least one of the three would change his vote.

How the prevailing prayers [persons] might influence this vote is disputable.

I digressed…… I’d say there’s a lot of hard ball to be played - in the open of the public’s eye or behind the scenes… to get one of the “THREE” to compromise the principle of his vote.

The County staff has been difficult and unmovable - or so it seems to moi, just the casuale observer. thus deserving of the dressing down they received from Pokorney. Nelson voted a number of principles - namely that citizens requests had not been adequately included in the discussion. Lansing was disturbed by a variety of issues he felt were not in the City’s best interests… including the speed limit. Lansing’s attempt to deliver a thoroughly discussed version were muted by majority on the Council that wanted to get-on-with-it!

CP Pokorney may have stepped too deep into the muck of politics with his remarks about the County… but from my POV his remarks were on-target, when he spoke of the County’s [staff or Commissioners] methods.

It remains to be seen whether the County will support the reduced speed limit. This is likely the biggest sticking point. Hooray for those of the N’Fld City Council who voted for that principle.

Raspberries to the others.

Frankly, a more aggressive approach to this issue by the City [Council and Staff] early on might have moved this mess forward much earlier - Given all the time time expended, were Pokorney, the Mayor and Arnie Nelson wrong to vote to hang it up?

Nope… they were fortunate that the vote required… was greater than the vote it got.

vs

I have it on good authority that the vote to pass this item (category of…) required a super majority.

As informed as I often think I am… I’m not certain if that’s 5 of 7 or 6 of 7 - I think it is FIVE. Regardless… Thursday night’s vote was four in favor and three opposed - thus it failed!

Put your bull dozers on hold…….. and plan for an assault on City Hall. Check that! Maybe the first stop ought to be at the Rice County Offices. Bash a few heads down there.

As Jim Pokorney said, everyone involved… interested in… and present at all of the Meetings these past few months is a resident of Rice County. Councilman Pokorney might provide car pooling.

Where’s the prayer service when you need it? Incidentally, I didn’t see any in attendance Thursday night. Oh M’gosh!

Amendments were presented, but voted down. Project is to proceed as originally planned.

Woodley is very dangerous to families
http://northfieldnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=26&SubSectionID=63&ArticleID=20820&TM=38978.14