In addition to axing the vacant positions, the county has cut money for training and delayed some building projects.

Additions to the judicial center, the law enforcement center and the western service center have been delayed three years. Plans for a public safety support center have been dropped for now.

An FYI to all: tonight’s City Council Work Session has a Safety Center Project Update on the agenda.

The packet also says the Taskforce recommends the City Council consider two options for financing: 1. voter approval/referendum of $10.4 million plus land acquisition costs/General Obligation Bonds, or 2. City Council approval of sale of the same amount of Capital Improvement Bonds; these subject to reverse referendum. (oh oh! Warning; dangerous territory!)

The Public Safety Taskforce Final Report is included in the packet as Attachment #5; I did not see the Minority report included.

I would recommend people who are interested in this issue, come to listen to the council discussion. It’s #4 on the agenda, preceded by discussions on limiting/reorganizing the Boards and Commissions, skateboard plaza review, and an update on the City Attorney selection process, so it will be a while into the evening.

Are you a bit concerned about our city leaders’ decision-making processes?

It would seem to me that the first step would be to determine IF we have a problem, the second step would be to determine the SPECIFICS of that problem, and the final step would be to develop possible SOLUTIONS to that problem.

In a democracy, maybe an additional step would be to allow the citizens to decide which solution they are willing to bear.

In my mind the first step would be that we seem to have a space issue with the fire department. I’m not sure whether the specifics are, as Kris Vohs suggested, that we have three feet of fire fighter changing space when we need six feet of space or, as you have suggested, that we have three lanes of parking area and we need four lanes of parking area, but I do think that clarifying that need would be the second step. Finally, I think there should be three levels of proposed solutions, simple, moderate and complex…or, low-cost, medium-cost and high-cost.

It seems city staff met for a year, then a few citizens were added to the group and they continued meeting for a few months. Apparently the charge to the group was to determine on which site we should build a new $12-15 million facility. Personally, I don’t think that was a very good process.

And now we hear that our city’s leaders are in conversations about purchasing a site.

Building a new $12-15 million facility is a huge issue. I would certainly hope that the city council would do a lot more in depth studying before any recommendation is made about a safety center. They have the report from the task force on sites. The administration is in conversations about purchase with the owners of two of the sites. But I don’t think the community has had a chance to weigh in on all the options available, and analyze the needs of the fire and police departments.

Recently, the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors decided to support the minority report penned by Ray Cox on the Safety Center issue. Given the value of a $3 million expansion over a $12 million new facility, the choice was obvious. No doubt it would have been easier for Ray to go along with the majority. It took an act of courage, and a keen sense of duty, for him to pen that report.

I wish I would have had the same courage and sense of duty when the city opted to spend $500,000 to make a new parking lot on Water Street. I voted against it on the committee. But, I didn’t have the same courage and sense of duty that Ray had to pen a minority report. Now we have that new parking lot, and $500,000 less in our collective pockets.

There are currently many exciting ideas floating around Northfield, such as the skateboard park which is still a possibility. But does it have to cost $600,000? I just heard about 600 feet of bike trail that will cost $240,000. At $400 a foot, lawyers must be building it. I was recently at a committee meeting where everyone but me thought that a pedestrian bridge over Highway 3 at Third Street was a good idea. Yeah, great idea; but how many millions?

On behalf of the chamber, and speaking for myself, I applaud Ray for his courage, and his sense of duty in watching the town’s coffers. In these trying times, we need more Rays to speak up when our enthusiasm gets ahead of our brains and wallets. And, if you want someone to speak for you, contact your chamber.

David Ludescher, Past president
Northfield Area Chamber of Commerce

If I am interpreting her correctly, then did the Majority Report jump the gun?

I’ve not seen it, but I understand the engineer’s report contracted for by the city, regarding the present safety center, has been released. A reporter from the News called me yesterday and informed me that the report indicates that for about $325,000 the present facility can be flood protected. I understand it also includes other less costly options so that the present safety center building can continue to be used.

Perhaps one of the Task Force members, the Mayor, or the Administrator could shed some more light on the issue.

It would help if you would be more specific on what you don’t understand.

Whoever said that seems to have little cognizance of the direness of the monetary situation, or the kind of stress and apprehension that many people are feeling.

To spin the results of the process regarding the task force… which now seem to require some serious reconsideration… leaves a less than secure feeling in current process of leadership, and the openness of the discussion.

If I understand the process to date correctly, we’ve got over a year’s worth of work between the internal task force and the external task force, not to mention tens of thousands of dollars of staff time and consultant time, for a result that is now being spun as “very preliminary”.

Let me be quite clear that I am only expressing my very personal opinion now…

…with a report that does not appear to have assembled critical information for good decision-making, and a process that does not appear to have even asked, much less answered, many of the key questions, the product currently before us is a recommendation that a number of people within the community view as neither operationally necessary or financially feasible.

I hope you understand my hesitation to raising a toast in celebration of the latest p.r. on this subject.

Drive by the new fire hall in New Prague. For less than $3million, they got more than a gray box.

In terms of location, it’s not about visibility. It’s about projected development patterns, high risk/industrial land usage, increased train traffic, projected car and truck traffic patterns, and congestion at 5th and Hwy3 as factors in the decision of where and how many stations are required to serve our community for the next couple of decades.

There is absolutely zero reason why we cannot have a cost conscious building which is a fabulous design; a building that is essentially a brilliantly designed pole barn, NOT a grey cube on the highway.

Jay Jasnoch , where are you? I know you can do this; you know you can do this! A fabulous design, an exciting design, with industrial materials.

This notion of a building such as Lakeville can afford to put up is just BS; priorities that would ask that at this time are just ‘screwed up’ and fatuous.

The building that will make NF “proud” is one that most adequately serves the needs of the fireman and the community, and is a stunning design, built at an affordable cost, with the least expensive suitable materials.

Mayor Rossing talked to the Chamber board on Wednesday. In fairness to “the City”, it sounds as if planning is in the very preliminary stages. I don’t think the City has developed a decision rubric on how to value the “safety needs”.

Thanks to Ray for sticking his neck out and issuing a Minority Report.

What’s expected and would be supported is a serviceable utility building that fits the trucks that we use to keep folks safe, and located where everyone served can be reached without delay.

Unfortunately, “located where everyone served can be reached without delay” almost certainly means, “located where everyone can see it.” The existing Safety Center (on the outside, at least, is a pretty nice-looking building. I worry that if the City were to really take the cheap route on the building design that it would simply shorten the life of the new building — people would get tired of looking at the gray cube on the side of the highway.