Maren Swanson (city attorney) remarked that she and Brian O’C were checking with the state as to the response on the state’s end from a local BoA… I had thought that was all spelled out in the statute/administrative rules, whatever.

Are we just getting paranoid if “we” think that one is more important than the other to the staff? and to the city council?

How long do you continue to lobby before you just consider your case made, and then “let the chips fall where they may”? Or in OKCorral-ease, “who’ll be the last man standing”?

…ah yes, the Board of Appeals.

And I do believe anguish is NOT too strong a word.

p.s. and why would you still have to have done more ramps in the lower Cow when the state ADA guy said you didn’t? I thought the state was the ultimate last word?
If the state reviews and gives an opinion, I was under the impression that overruled the local “interpretation”.

I lend my support to the idea of Northfield working with Dundas to present the most attractive alternatives to our area businesses. It really comes down to tax dollars--what Northfield gives up is Dundas’ gain and vice versa. But it would be better to lose to each other because our community does gain when businesses locate and grow here.

I don’t think we should be sharing with Faribault--they already have beat the pants off of us--they have an excellent Chamber of Commerce and Industrial Corporation (I own one share).

What we should be doing is positioning Dundas and Northfield to go WEST--if we don’t, Rice County is going to start developing (and competing with the municipalities). Of course companies will want to be located on the freeway. We need to figure out how to make that work out the best.

Norm, I feel your pain--you have to become a legal expert just to understand what is going on and to protect your interests.

http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/archives/2381/

a few pints of John Courage might lure them back.

A business plan leads to the loan application. The bank needs bids. The bids need architectural and engineering drawings and kitchen design. These various professional drawings need the latest Code requirements to be incorporated into their drawings. These Codes are spelled out by the Building Official.

The plan to expand The Contented Cow pub began with a walk-through by the Building Official (BO) in late February 2007. Our first big surprise was that we needed to install two more bathrooms upstairs resulting in four handicapped accessible bathrooms in all – despite the fact that the two spaces were to be joined with a staircase. None of the professional questioned this. I did and it took three months of back-and-forth until I questioned it in writing and only then did the BO concede that three bathrooms were enough. Four would have killed the project; three meant that it might just work.

Then we were told that we had to sprinkle the upstairs and downstairs. Again, the pros shrugged and prepared to amend their drawings. However, I insisted that both old and new Codes (2003 & 2007) be scrutinized together with more detailed measurements of floor area and resulting seating capacity. Sure enough, under both Codes, the BO agreed that we did not have to sprinkle.

Then in September, the BO said that we had to install a ramp and landing system downstairs in front of the bar to make the whole room downstairs disabled accessible. This would have required seventy five feet of ramps and landings leaving very little room for anyone to sit in the downstairs bar area. We appealed and the State Inspector in charge of handicapped matters concluded, after visiting The Cow and considering ramps, chair lifts, and elevators, that it was all infeasible. Now the BO required us to change the existing ramp from 1 in 8 to 1 in 12.

If we had not challenged the BO, if we had planned to do all that he said was required (and that the pros initially were not prepared to challenge) it would have added about $100,000 to a project that was ultimately bid at the end of October to cost $250,000 (a full kitchen, two bathrooms etc. would have left enough space for about 40 customers upstairs). Consider the rate of return on investment and cash flow that if you can.

As much as the cost, the end product would have looked much like the boxes on H3; the restaurant would have had to work very hard (7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, lunch and dinner and probably breakfast too); all in a town of 18,000 people reduced to about 13,000 people eight months of the year. The plan to expand the Contented Cow pub upstairs is, like conforming to the sprinkling , ADA, and ‘process’ requirements in our 100+ year-old downtown buildings, simply infeasible .

I would like to thank the EDA for the $5,000 grant contribution towards the cost of the drawings and recommend the entrepreneur inquire about the financial assistance available at City Hall as well as the knowledge and resources available to the business person at the NEC, NDDC, Chamber and the Economic Development Director in City Hall.

This fair city, this jewel in the crown of Minnesota, will bumble and stumble along, losing businesses or seeing them stillborn (9 months later in the case of The Cow), unless and until we realize that it’s not the economy stupid, it’s the politics; and it’s not the policies (or the Codes), it’s the people.

We all need help to start and grow our businesses. Indeed we are required (and duty-bound) to seek it. We just hope that we will meet someone who will sincerely help us to find our camels.

Also, a colleague sent me this PDF of a page from the 1987 Chamber of Commerce Guide: Industry Likes Northfield.

The larger picture that deals specifically with the smaller businesses, is the economic balance in the core downtown.

Because of the market evaluation numbers, the taxes on the historic district buildings have gone “sky-high”, and are all out of proportion with what a small retail business can comfortably pay; and yet the building is a “business” also, and must pay its costs from its revenues. Just that simple.

It doesn’t matter whether the landlord adds the tax portion into a single rent figure, or separates it out as an additional cost to the tenant, the income from the rents has to pay for the costs of running the building. Right now a 2000 sq.ft. commercial space, on Division carries a MONTHLY tax burden of over $700. Tax only, that’s zero rent.

Do you see why both small retail, and landlords are struggling?

Downtown retail, and building owners, will have an even more difficult time “holding on” if this trend continues. It has already had a severe effect on the ability of small retail entrepreneurs to start businesses in the core downtown. And building owners have less and less to maintain their buildings.

It will need some major changes, either in business trends or creative ways of handling these old historic districts, to make a positive change.

Everyone talks about the land; no one talks about the effort needed to get someone ON the land…

Until a truly solid promotion effort is committed to, I don’t see much point in doing anything but identifying possible industrial land on the Future Land Use Map, in the new Comp Plan.

Maybe we could have two areas -- 120 acres in Northfield (“Sense of Place”), and the other 200 acres in Dundas (“Place of Sense”??). The Chamber gets its 320 acres; Northfield gets its 120 acres; and Dundas … Who is not satisfied?

Second, given that the Economic Development Plan calls for 120 acres for expansion, what steps are in the works to make this become a reality? How much do we currently have for infill and/or redevelopment?

So, if the CofC’s desired acreage for biz development (ever growing in size, like Topsy) is all in Dundas…

Well … everybody cool with that?

Happy Turkey Day!

Jane Moline is going to be the President of the Chamber of Commerce…

…and we’re going to have someone in that position who can get her head around the importance of an educated and creative work force, friendly and flexible city staff people, and the importance of sense of place in attracting businesses and workers?

Wow, that is a promising economic development!

- Ross

Presently, the Chamber is of the opinion that 320 acres on the west side of Northfield is the best place for business expansion. But, as CCB has shown, Dundas is a viable option. After all, Dundas has the two components that Chris said that Northfield needs -- a welcoming attiutude, and available land.

With regard to the welcoming attitude, Peter raises an excellent point about the staff. The staff doesn’t set policy; they carry out the policies which are given to them. Has the EDA or the Planning Commission directed the staff to make business development a priority? Has either body talked to CCB about how to avoid a loss like this? Has the EDA tried to identify the 120 acres in the consultant’s plan?

With all due respect to my friends Tracy, Ross, and now, Victor can we stop talking about “intangible wealth”, “incompentent officials”, and “walkability”, and start talking about the components that Chris mentioned -- more land, and friendly processes? In your roles as public officials, what are you going to recommend and do to make this happen?

If Northfield is not interested, please let the Chamber know because apparently Jane Moline and the rest of Dundas is interested. And, in a couple of years, the Chamber president will be a Dundas businessman.

Peter: I don’t know which land; I would suspect Armstrong Road, because of the parcel size, and the fact that the issue of infrastructure
( water,sewer) became an issue because it was already there, or basically there. I just heard at the time that deciding to leave NF was, at the end, looking for an easier, perhaps more predictable, development path.
I doubt CCB was looking for what you term “handouts”; look what they built and estimate what it must have cost.

To CCB: Dundas’s gain; NF’s loss. I was very impressed by your landscaping, both the grading and planting…an admirable example.

If the issue was so important to the City, then the City Administrator should have approached the Council, “the legislative body”, the opportunity to say yes or no under the specific circumstances of the development. Other legal issues come into play here that would complete the discussion, but the important point is the Economic/Planning Director did the right thing.

It was not his position to make “legislative” policy decisions, only the City Council can turn over this type of predetermined cost sharing. In the ordinance, otherwise, Staff would come under tremendous pressure to say yes to everyone that walked through the door and ask for a hand out.

I believe it is probably an example of a lack of transparency on the decision making process that led to this decision. If the Council was presented the opportunity to decide, then another can of worms would have been opened. It is no surprise however that people who develop land ask for “incentives” from the City. Whether CCB was aware they needed to pay the costs is a red hearing.

“… Be organized and consistent. If you want them to build the taj mahal, tell them what’s expected and what the costs are. Business don’t care as long as they know up front!”

And was the Mayor trying to ‘save the deal’ after negotiations with CCB broke off or was his involvement all prior to that?

Northfield’s reputation for not being ‘business friendly’ has been a hot topic lately so it would seem this is important to understand, especially in light of Chris’ comments above re: “monopoly” and “ease to work with”.

I don’t know Brian well. We’ve had him as a guest on our radio show/podcast once and I thought he was very smart and knowledgeable about the topics we discussed. And he’s always been very responsive to my questions re: Mendota Homes/The Crossing.

Maybe the question now is, since it’s long after the CCB departure, what are current and prospective businesses saying about how they’re treated at City Hall re: development matters?

How can we ever fix things if we can’t even say what needs fixing?

Since the Community Development Director said it in public, at a city meeting,( That he’d have to take some blame) I guess it should not be a “secret” that this was an instance where the staff was not serving NF’s best long term interests. As I understand it, no matter how hard the Mayor worked to save the deal, it was messed up by who was to pay some infrastructure costs.

So you can discuss, all day, whether quality of life is important or not; what
is really important is to not have staff ever, ever, get into the policy arena. The staff’s expertise is best employed to implement policy, never to make what are closer to policy decisions.

And that is NOT to slam staff; they have every right to make mistakes, as we all do.
So what is the business unfriendliness picture in NF? The Chamber tells a retailer that wants to be in the Downtown to go to the highway; the staff messes up on who pays what …AND the taxes downtown are too high for both the building and business owner’s ROI; and that’s because the commercial sales are all averaged together by the assessor, whether it’s a 400K building in the DT, or a 2+million building in the south highway/industrial zone.