If you are certain about the practical functionality of each group, could you please give some specifics about the steps you would hope to see the PC take?

The EDA, Council and Staff are the ones who have the charge to make things happen. What truly concerns me is all the talk …from everyone but the Planning Commission … about the essential need for this land to be shovel ready. Of course the major infrastructure costs will be reimbursed by the ultimate user…
But how far in the future is that? Who has the $$$ to put up the initial costs? The EDA?, not without levying a big number.
Remember that the EDA and the HRA both have the ability to levy taxes; who will pay initially… and when is that?
Will all those who have been asking for property tax relief (yourself) included) be appalled by a big economic development tax levy on their next bill?
No one in the “City” is answering this, however there are constant allusions to the need to be shovel ready.
When will the Council and EDA address the funding sources for the initial costs?

I am sure the EDA and staff are willing to lend a hand. both “bodies” understand the nature of the task.

Ross and other “no” voters: Please don’t use, “we need more specificity”, or “we are doing what we think is right” as stalling tactics.

As to your comments in #188, you are incorrect, IMHO, in your sequencing of events. The Planning Commission makes their decision and then the council council approves, or not.

The idea that all boards and commissions are simply rubber stamps for the council is offensive to the role of volunteer citizen Boards and Commissions. If they are not to do “what they think is right”, but only carry out the directions of the council, then there is absolutely no need for them to exist at all.

There are quite a few processes to go through to make the property shovel-ready. If every step is going to be made as difficult as this step, businesses aren’t going to wait; they are going to go someplace else.

City leaders agree the project will take time, energy and before it’s over, money. But if they can pull off the business park of the Economic Development Authority’s dreams, it will be a model for other cities full of green industries: medical, technological and those focusing on sustainability. Economic Development Authority Chair Rick Estenson doesn’t expect construction to begin at the site, west of Northfield Hospital, for at least two years. And when development of a new business/industrial park planned for the site does begin, it’s likely to come slowly.

Editorial: Annexing land is good first step.

But pulling this land into the city’s borders is just the first step. The next step is to attract the right kind of business to locate in the park. To do that, the city must have a plan, beginning with the hiring of a new economic development manager. It must also do some public relations work to eliminate the stigma that the city isn’t welcoming to business. The city needs to market itself. Without these basic steps in tough economic times, the annexation of 530 acres of farmland could be a moot point.

I hope the print copy of the NNews today carries more details than the website report Griff posted. Can somebody on this list who attended the Monday Council meeting tell me if it was Linus or Greg Langer that spoke?

I stopped at Farmers Market in Northfield last week and was struck by the number of sellers who live in the Greenvale Township area whose operations will be disrupted by this business park and associated roads.

My driving concern regarding this annexation (and I was one of the “yes” votes, but just barely) is that the City does not yet have adequate controls in place, or the political will, to shape and direct the growth that may occur there.

The best-case scenario is that the land is used for a blue-ribbon (TIP Strategies’ phrase) business park using best practices of sustainability, filled with companies identified as being in one of the target industries (again, referring back to the excellent Economic Development Plan adopted two summers ago.) If this happens, it will be wonderful. I think that’s what we’re going for.

However, the worst-case (or, I might even say, more likely) scenario, based on how Northfield has handled similar issues in the past, is that Wal-Mart will come in and purchase a bunch of land for warehousing or some such, and the City will just roll over with mouthings about “the will of the people” or “commercial taxes” (crappy entry-level jobs notwithstanding) and not be thoughtful or careful enough about using our land assets wisely for the benefit of this and future generations of Northfielders.

Annexation is a decision made by the elected representatives of Northfield taxpayers. I hope that Northfield taxpayers can be educated about and mobilized around the issues surrounding possible development of this acreage, and keep the pressure on our elected officials to plan strategically (rather than simply reacting), and to aim high, not just settle for the first or easiest thing that comes along.

In the end, the Staff’s recommendation and the Council’s decision reflect the Planning Commission’s desire that the eastern portion develop first. The staff and the Council wisely decided that Northfield can’t control the western portion if it is outside the City limits.

Ross: If the Planning Commission needs more specificity; ask the Staff whose recommendation the Council accepted. That is what they get paid to do. This doesn’t have to be a difficult process, especially on a 7-0 vote.

“We”, and that must by fact must include you, do not have the vote.

How does it help to challenge the PC, as you did in your previous post? They will do, as we all should, what they believe is the right thing to do; if the council overrides them, and I believe they will on virtually all of the annexation issues, then we must hold the council accountable to us, and by Charter , to the Planning Commission.

This will not be an easy process.

Of course the Commission will accept the Council’s direction on this issue. I think that it’s very clear to everyone who serves on Boards and Commissions, particularly over the past 9 to 12 months, that the Commissions recommend and the Council rules.

I don’t think any of us, Alice, Greg, Ron or myself, were surprised by the Council’s decision. We were just trying to recommend what we thought would be the best for Northfield, given our experiences, expectations and evaluation of the particular situation.

In our efforts to implement the Council’s wishes, it would be helpful to have a little more specificity. Personally, I think that the Council’s written response to the Commission’s recommendation will provide that additional clarity.

Tracy has offered to post both the Commission’s recommendation and the Council’s response on this website…as long as they are both tied with a bow. Good luck with that Tracy.

Thanks much,

Ross

My primary concern as “we” move forward is that we have a 4-3 “no” vote against at the Planning Commission, and a 7-0 “yes” vote at the Council.

My question for the Planning Commission (including Tracy and Ross) is whether the Planning Commission will accept the Council and staff’s direction on this, and move forward toward making the business park a reality. Or, will they continue to try to assert their will and vision in the process.

Tracy or Ross -- Do either of you care to comment on how the Council’s actions will be perceived by the Planning Commission’s four “no” voters?

Not a comment against you, but a comment against the policies of the cities.

Why must everything be about paving everything over, and everything be about “Oh, this will be useful for DJJD”.

I think that DJJD has its purpose, and that it brings tourism and attention to Northfield, but I get the feeling a lot of times that the city is more focused towards not impacting this event, or supporting this event over supporting the needs of its residents.

Even if you paved this lot over, how many spaces would you obtain?

I would much rather see the use of remote lots, and a bus shuttle similar to what was used between events for DJJD. (I think it was 2 years ago?) If you had a button, the rides between locations such as Downtown, Central Park, the Ice Arena, and the Rodeo Grounds were free.

Even a tractor or horse drawn wagon on the bikepath between the rodeo grounds and Bridge Square would be a nice touch.

Something needs to be done to minimize the amount of cars downtown at DJJD. It is way too congested. Perhaps alternate parking at Carleton College, the Middle and High Schools, and Northfield Ballroom, with a shuttle would help? I would love to see downtown from second to seventh, washington to water, completely locked down to vehicles, and make it all pedestrian only during DJJD, and have folks walk or be bussed in. The new water street lot could be used for handicap parking/access as well as bicycle parking and transit drop off. The “Beer Garden” can be moved to the 4th Street Bridge.

Anyway, I digress.

It looks like Northfield is getting bigger…

They will have to structure an annexation agreement agreeable to all parties.
They will have to structure a model for a development agreement, with the standards they want to hold to.
They will have to insist on a Master development plan for the entire acreage, obviously more detailed for the East end, and more conceptual for the west end , which SHOULD remain in greenway easements, futur green corridors and some parkland.
They will have to figure out initial infrastructure costs and benefits, and financing sources.
They will have to negotiate a compensation package for Greenvale TWP. residents for the land their twp. is losing … and from Greg Langer’s comments last night that is not going to be cheap… and that’s a cost not mentioned before.
AND … last night there was no mention of the letter from the landowners, agreeing to abide by the new comp plan development regulations, which was required by resolution in the Council meeting of July 7, 2007. What happened to that? It must be done or the resolution rescinded, but cannot just be left as a loose thread.

I still find it hard to believe there is not a developer , waiting in the wings, somewhere.

Will there now be ANY interest by the EDA in developing infill sites? If the EDA has money to buy options on this land, then there should be equal amounts for the core business district, or any site within the commercial districts… Alas, no active project talk on that from the EDA.

Could the EDA make a wise use of some of their money by paving the City’s land in the back (west) of the Q Block? A lot cheaper than the $2500.00 per parking stall ( ! ) for a ramp structure, useful during DJJD, and using that lot would drive the warrant numbers necessary to get a stop light at Hwy 3 and Third.

The vote was the easy part for the council; now let’s see what happens…

The city can probably get an option at little or no cost, but should be very careful--the city should not buy the land. The developer should buy the land. (Or, if you had a decent Industrial Corporation, they could buy the land.) The city should not be in the land business--they should be in the business to provide services to the TAXPAYERs.

He favors a high tech office park and light industry. Not things like trucking or ethanol. He envisions giving short term tax incentives (TIFs) which would give the City leverage in working with developers. The City could increase the incentive if the plan was multistory, for example. It could cost $3 million to bring infrastructure out there. It would be expected that first developments would be on the east end, working to the west.

Then I spoke with Kris Vohs and Arnie Nelson. Neither of them were aware the City would be buying an option. I asked that they bring it up at the meeting.

Mayor Lansing on KYMN radio this morning confirmed the City would secure the option and sell it to the developer. He said the discussion went for l-l/2 hours so I assume fine points were covered. What does it cost (per year?) to secure such an option, anyone??

Furthermore, if infrastructure costs were the Planning Commission’s concerns, then a recommendation of no annexation makes more sense than a small annexation, which will carry a higher cost per acre.

Finally, If the costs are too high, the City can always not approve build-out. Without control of the land, nothing can happen.

If they overrule the PC, they must submit their reasons,in writing, to the PC.
If they do overrule, I hope their reasons will not just be the pro forma and fairly meaningless jargon that has come in some of the recommendations from Land Vista, and Staff.

Come to think of it, the last written statement from Land Vista, which came to the council’s work session last week, had some pretty wild and unsupportable claims as to various numbers… numbers of commuters who would now work in town, etc., etc., etc.

I hope the council can do better.

I hope that you had a nice Fathers’ Day. I wonder if you are as succinct when you’re writing legal documents.

1. As Joel Walinski said, “It’s the only option so far this year”. It would be hard to characterize jumping on it as long-range planning.

2. Annexation probably only costs some staff time, some legal work and maybe a consultant or two. However, the EDA says that we need “shovel ready” land so that the developers will come. I would be interested in hearing what you think the infrastructure costs will be for 530 acres in the Northwest Territory.

3. You’re right, like everything else, it’ll be the taxpayers’ problem.

4. Actually, the Planning Commission can recommend whatever it believes is best for the community…and then the City Council makes their own decision.

It is pretty clear, at least to me, that the Council will follow your recommendation at their meeting tonight.

Thanks for following up,

Ross