Late last week I heard that with the latest “add”, the cost of renovating the City Hall is now over a million dollars. Already at $800,000, there’s now a quarter million dollar addition from Johnson Controls.
This has been one of the strangest on-going stories, at least to me, in a year full of strange stories.
When Al Roder first arrived in town, he floated the idea of swapping the library for the city hall. Not only did I think that cutting up the grand second floor space into little offices would be an aesthetic crime, I couldn’t really visualize the library space working for city hall. Al’s next idea was putting the city hall in the old College City Beverage building. Not only did I question the location for our city hall, it seemed to me that a town short of industrial space shouldn’t be converting one of its finest sites into a public use.
Fortunately, after probably too much time and too many resources, both of those ideas were dropped. In its place was proposed the substantial renovation of the city hall. When Al was advocating for the library and then the CCB sites, he suggested that renovating the existing building would be cost prohibitive; a figure of two million dollars was bandied about in the informal discussions. As that concept rose to the top of the heap, the cost miraculously dropped to five or six hundred thousand. Now it’s back over a million.
Accordiing to Mr. Roder, the city hall project was all about increasing customer service.
I don’t know of a single citizen who thinks that spending a million dollars on the city hall is a good use of taxpayer money. Will a few more “adds” drive the price back to $2 million? Are the alleged gains in customer service worth $1 million or $2 million? Is it a better investment than a hockey rink, a performing arts center, or a new business park? With Al now in Norfolk, who is the champion for this project, pushing it steadily forward, and keeping it on the top of our list of priorities?
Somebody suggested that the thirty-day clock for a reverse referendum on this project is already ticking.
Ross wins the door prize for accurate reporting. Actually, for reporting in any fashion … on this issue.
The Northfield News has been “crushingly” silent!
Following two Pubic Hearings on the issue of the “first step” toward bonding for the $880 K City Hall deal, the council voted it up on Aug 4 at the second hearing. This indeed started a 30 day clock for the public’s final weigh-in with a possible petition for a reversed referendum. Staff is pushing the deal .. and Finance Director (Kathleen Mac Bride) was pretty offended by the meager public “outcry” at the first of the two hearings back in July, looking I think for Public approval. Mac felt (am I paraphrasing Mac?) that, while the Public’s view was meager … it was inaccurate … that the action asked by Staff was merely to allow the process to move to the “next” legal step, so eventually, if bonds are to be levied, the ducks would be in their rows … emphasizing, that, no funds were yet dedicated, or indeed was the project even set … and, without this early action, the city would find themselves in a bind over timely bonding.
Much of “Mac’s view seemed to be directed to defend the CIP process that Lansing had initiated and Mac has shepherded for well over a year ago, and is responsible for a better (MUCH BETTER) fiscal policy. Opinions voiced against the $880 K were not directed at that process .. but as you’ve pointed out so eloquently, Ross, Roder’s long sought plan to spend money on the City Hall.
No one came back to speak at the second (continued) hearing … save yours truly .. and I pointed out that at the very least, the packet information presented by staff seemed to contradict itself and staff’s position. That the action requested, was associated with a SPECIFIC project .. and that staff, NOW armed with the PROVISIONAL okay .. would then proceed to have plans drawn, specifications completed and bids solicited. All this is bureaucratic lingo for “spending money” .
Then, sometime in the future, staff would come back with the next step and the loaded the phrase: “AS directed” by the Council, we have been churning butter … $880,000 worth, etc. So, I further asked that the Council have the open public discussion of the City Hall makeover first … before they take even this non-binding step, as too often I’ve seen staff suggested action that was short of commitment … eventually become reality .. and then, when the public weighs back in, then … there’s the hue and cry of “too late” for this public view to be heard.
The reality is, once a project gets in the cue, it is hard to remove it! The question is … today, do we want a bigger fancier City Hall … or, are there other places to spend a little money that would serve the community in a broader manner?
So, did staff present this at this time of year so there are fewer persons around to mount a reverse referendum? Why does staff want this re-do? More importantly, why has the Northfield News failed to mention the Public Hearings and the vote … and MUCH more importantly, why has the Northfield Newsfailed to mention the 30 day clock for thet citizen action?
Last week I wrote and presented a draft piece for the News regarding this issue. The News called, saying it was too long, and, would I shorten to fit the Letter to the Editor .. or the Guest Column -- this latter set for Aug 20.
I was assured at that time, the News was reporting on the issue in Saturday’s Aug 9 edition… but, there was nothing in Saturday’s News. In today’s News (Aug 13), there’s still no story. Now nine days of the 30 day referendum petition process has passed us by. Whether by design or defect, the News has pushed a knife toward the heart of any Citizen’s petition and is complicit in the council’s untimely action.
NOTE: Lee Lansing and Arnie Nelson both vote NO on this.
Ross you’ve opened the issue here with the first true public airing of this situation. There is, I believe, one slight error in your initial post.
You wrote …
The Johnson Controls expenditure was first in line, and, as I recall, that’s set at 250 to 260K. The bonding is in the amount of $880 K. Incidentally, some on the council who vote for the 880K voted against the Johnson Controls deal. Go figure …
So, as Ross said, we are, well over a million dollars in potential spending on this resume builder for Al Roder, and he’s already eating Dairy Queens in Norfolk NE.
Just so you’ll understand, I’m not opposed to spending money, only to spending money unwisely. This deal was for Roder’s ego … not for Northfield’s greater need. Some greater need deals might be: parking lots, Skateboard parks , City Parks, River Front development, RR Crossing gates, stop lights on Hwy 3 at Third street. Bike Trail development, etc.
vs
Followup to my previous comment on Ross’ $880K for the Hall.
I see that a closer preusal of the N’Fld News reveals it has written on the issue that Ross broached here on LG. I was wrong. Would that they (the News) had used their usual provcative headline style … perhaps I would have read it more closely to begin with.
Something like:
I would have liked to have seen a headline something along this line”
In any event, the News did tell the story. It is more or less accurate … simply missing the drama of the Public’s voice.
vs
Thx Victor. I never saw the Nfld News article on their web site either but a search found it: Council takes step toward funding major projects.
Wow, only 21 days left for citizens to file a reverse referendum petition?
I guess I’d better compile the CIP straw poll. If anyone hasn’t yet taken the poll, now’s the time!
Victor,
Have you thought about organizing a referendum petition?
I’d probably sign one.
30 days? I’m out of town . . . how soon should I be back to sign a petition? Thanks, Ross, for highlighting this issue!
I must admit I have not been following this issue particularly closely. What specifically would the money be spent on? Expansion of Council Chambers? That makes some sense. What else? Would the Johnson Controls money result in cost savings in the long run (e.g. energy efficiency)?
The City Hall is one of our least impressive buildings in town. My impression is it is not an inspiring place to work for staff. The windows certainly need some work.
What would be the best things we could do with this building and help us retain staff and improve their work space? What dollar amount would be required? Let’s not let any dissatisfaction with Mr. Roder get in the way of making some reasonable improvements in city hall.
Reverse referendum? How would you word it? The City Council of the City of Northfield shall not be authorized to borrow up to $880,00 dollars for city hall improvements until a final has been adopted and competitive bids have been received and awarded. I guess we would also have to look at the Charter and the recall language as to form and function. The controlling State Statute is 475.521. Wait a minute I just found the statute language I don’t know how to link but I can cut and paste
c) A municipality may issue the bonds only after obtaining the approval of a majority of
the voters voting on the question of issuing the obligations, if a petition requesting a vote on the issuance is signed by voters equal to five percent of the votes cast in the municipality in the last general election and is filed with the clerk within 30 days after the public hearing. The commissioner of revenue shall prepare a suggested form of the question to be presented at the election.
It doesn’t give a suggested form like our charter does it sounds like all that needs to be said is the votes would like to vote on this.
Ross, you might want to add some of the following costs to your well over a million dollar city hall renovation numbers -- help me out if this isn’t how to link?
http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/assets/c/City-Hall-Renovations-Att-2.pdf
The following numbers are from the June 2nd City Council meeting concerning the city hall improvements, marked up with all kinds of preliminary estimate only, discussion only, and not for construction language it does come up with a figure of $705,377 but that doesn’t include a whole list of things and assumes the ground floor is unoccupied during construction.
Where should the council go?
Is that included in the 880,000?
How about asbestos abatement by owner, no structural work. and no site work? Is that included in the 880,000.
The Johnson Controls improvements to city hall as approved at the January 7th 2008 city council meeting were $299,691.
How about the bond costs themselves?
Finally this whole thing was kicked off by a contract approved by the council on June 18th 2007 with Hay Dobbs at a cost of $49,855 with an additional 2,500 for expenses. As of 4/18/08 the city has paid Hay Dobbs $77,598.86.
Where can I sign the petition?
Tell me, why is it the mere citizens who move here, come because Northfield’s so “idyllic”? Do the city’s employees not see the same horizon you see? There’s more to life than fancy ball rooms. Some of my most intriguing tasks have been mounted in warehouse lofts, converted into art studios, theaters and places of innovative expression … no A/C … and the bathrooms were on another floor … w/pull chain flushers! Dancers dance on splintery floors … because they want’a dance!
So-what if it’s 30 years old as a City Hall and was originally thought to be only temporary housing of our local government. 30 years ago I was headed for the coasts .. the big time, stardom, etc. What happened. Roder didn’t have me on his resume? Gimme a break!
This consultant/ staff runaway style of government has been rampant for 15 years or more. Finally, the global economy has tipped and now the reality of out of control self serving interests sets in our town too.
Opps, lost my big open!
In my excited response (last comment) I had first responded to Patrick Enders and David Delong, saying the Petition is Coming. Look for it at the coffee houses, the Cow and all places were thinkers gather.
There was more … but this is enough.
victor
Victor, the move of City Hall to the present location was in no means supposed to be temporary. I was involved in the fiasco when the land and school building was going to be sold to HUD for high density housing.
Years ago, when the city received Washington school for a song, the deal was that the land and building was to stay in the public domain. The school took a loss in selling it to the city for their “permanent location”. If I remember it right the land was originally donated to the school district and also had the stipulation that it stay in the public domain. The sale to HUD was foiled because of this agreement. It is buried in records that would be hard to find because this took place about 20 years ago and it was a job to find them even at that time.
When the city wanted to sell the school land and building, the bridge across the river from the Cow to Water Street was suppose to go to the new, envisioned City Hall. It was all pretty covert and took a lot of digging to find the references.
Robbie: thanx for the correction.
I have been here since 1995 … and what i’ve always been told (overheard) is the temporary status. It is so inbred in concept now, people like me repeat it without a second thought. I’m also confident that the “covert” characteristic of what you describe, is still part of the agenda of those who are empowered … yesterday or today. This is one reason I work as hard as I do for clarity.
As for background information such as that which you have just disseminated … We’re all the better for knowing it. Thanx …
Here are even more reason then for holding the ground on the site … abandoning the Roder style of project creep/resume building … and when we’ve the dollars available to turn it into a proper city hall … then we take it on … on our time frame.
Victor has a commentary in today’s Nfld News: Council moves forward on ill-advised City Hall plan.
It concludes with:
We’re having newly appointed interim At-Large Councilor Dixon Bond on our show today to discuss the renovation plans.
Anyone know where to sign the petition for a reversal referendum by 9/3?
[...] topic: the plans to renovate City Hall. See Ross’ blog post City Hall Renovation Tops a Million Dollars to continue the discussion on that [...]
Editorial in today’s Nfld News: Bonding proposal should go to voters.
Nfld News managing editor Jaci Smith: Petition circulating at the Cow.
[...] Comments on this blog post are closed. Just the discussion in progress on Ross’ blog post titled City Hall Renovation Tops a Million Dollars. [...]
I signed the petition
Victor convinced me to sign the petition. Now I want to learn more about the proposed work in City Hall so that I can decide how to vote if it is on the ballot. I hope Locally Grown will help us to learn more.
A petition form is also available at ArtOnWater Gallery…I am one of the many supporting members of that ‘a small, but vocal group of council meeting regulars’… Dean Kjerland
Petition is also at Cocoa Bean.
The petition is at:
The Eagles Club
The VFW
The Contented Cow
The ReubNstein
Froggy Bottoms
Nortfield Golf Club
Tiny’s
CocoBean
Ole Store Cafe
Just Food
Chapati
Art On Water
3 Links Residential
3 Links Assisted Living
So much for ‘a vocal minority’.
Plus, I’ve tabled outside Just Foods on Saturday and the Ole Cafe on Sunday … and will be seen at G’by Blue Monday on Monday! Of course, I realize I’m the brashest of voices of that vocal minority. Final petition forms are due, signed and notarized, in City Hall by 4:45 PM on the Third of September.
Getting this going has been more complicated than I’d have thought … what with staff verifying the TEXT, etc., nonetheless, with the help of the Mayor (he voted no) and all those responsible for operating the establishments listed by Norman, I can tell you I do not believe I encountered anyone opposed to the Petition’s goals … a citizen vote … and only a very small handful of those who seemed to not want to be imposed on by being asked if they wanted their voices counted at the ballot box. Go figure on that one?? If you’ve a favorite business or retailer who doesn’t have a petition, it is only because I haven’t had the foot power to make all the calls.
Everyone I spoke to, gave me the “go ahead’!
Regardless of the numbers of signatures that are found sufficient (by Staff) … don’t be surprised to realize a slow down in conformatrion that could keep this off the Nov 4 ballot and cause a special election, so the empowered can point figures, saying the city was forced to spend money on another election.
That kind of “gamesmanship” may have move to Nebraska … but nothing surprises me when it comes to the empowered responding to a legitimate challenge.
One other thing I question, is the assumption (by staff) that there is in fact a “deadline” for the petition to be presented. Chapter 6.6 of OUR charter reads to me a different possibility.
The problem here may be in getting an objective interpretation (read) of our charter or ordinances … even the state’s stauets, when it comes to challenging staff or the council’s preferred position. In this case, since we have two votes on the side of fiscal responsibility and principle ,,, (Lansing and Nelson), the vote need to reverse, is only 2 more.
Final plea: Registered voter’s who are residents of Northfield, seek out a petition and sign it. See Norman’s list for locations. Talk to your neighbors! Urge them to sign.
Do you really want a failed administrator’s resume dream, drive your tax burden?
If the Council wants this, let them personally lobby the voters. If the candidates have an opinion, let them get informed and campaign on this issue.
I am surprised that some of the business are allowing a table to be set up outside their establishment to beseech their customers to sign a petition. I was going to go t brunch at the Ole Store, saw Victor out front at a card board table and changed my mind.
I want to be clear about my position on the bonding issue, I have no position because I have not reached a decision.
Nonetheless, I think businesses run the risk of alienating their customer base particularly if it involves a pro-active person pushing the petition for signature.
And the coffee shops are not the only places where the “thinks” gather to discuss the governance issues of our city.
Martha:
if the concern is for the business, (ole in your example) you may consider asking them or perhaps letting them know your feelings. I think by bringing this up in this audience, it may not reach or help the intended parties. I would think perhaps a better approach could be made. Perhaps drop a note or make a call to the business and explain you felt intimidated by this and decided to go somewhere else. (if that is what you are saying?)
I think no matter what the business is, or who may be in front of the business, if your saying this could be a mistake or hurt the business, then perhaps someone needs to make that point and not direct it at specific people or places or personal feelings.
My comment here is just one to say thank you for bringing up a concern that could perhaps hurt a fairly new business in Northfield. Two, address it in a way that perhaps could assist or help this new business, or any other business (for that matter) that may also have a card table in front of it, and least of all not to assume or make it sound like Victor has taken an aggressive role in obtaining signatures at the cost of prospective clients.
I hope this makes sense.
Martha -
Charlene makes a good point, if you are truly concerned about the business, bring it up with the owner.
You say you have no position because you have not made a decision, however, as Bill Ostrem noted in his comment, unless you sign the petition, you won’t have an opportunity to make a decision.
Finally, how long are you going to let your feelings about Victor shape your behavior? Although you might it might not be your first choice to start your morning by seeing his face, the food at the Ole Cafe is delicious.
Victor has certainly ruffled more than his share of feathers in this community, including mine on an almost weekly schedule, his ideas range from bone-headed to brilliant and always merit a listen.
- Ross
On tabling for petition signatures.
This has been a whirl wind experience … even for me. Time has made this effort a struggle … but a rewarding one!
Using the Pubic Right of Way for soliciting signatures is a right … So I’m surprised Martha, that you’d suggest any moral violation. Beyond that, It has been an eye opening experience. Of course this is only my testimony to the reactions my efforts have received, but I sincerely tell you the affirmative response has been significant.
At the Ole Cafe alone, it was really interesting, as a good one third of the citizens I encountered were from out of town, journeying to Northfield on a Sunday morning outing. ALL of these were complimentary to me for my civic engagement … and as they understood the issue, felt it was a “no brainer”. Sorry that You didn’t stop by, Martha, as perhaps we might have mended our splintered relationship, especially as your brother as opted out of the day to day rigors of governance.
Clearly Martha, as I know you … you are not opposed to my use of the public right of way for the exercising my rights of free expression … especially in this very unassuming manner.
The other “no brainer” is the request embedded in the petition … that being, to allow a public vote on this controversial decision that a small majority vote of the council has taken form the public, showing no recognition of the public’s voice at the Public Hearing.
As to your remark Ross … re: “bone headed ” ideas … Can you cite some of those?
As to “brilliant” … perhaps a better term there might have been logical innovative or forward thinking. If I had a Smily Face to paste here I would .. although, I’m VERY serious.
Just an update on the count. My efforts illustrate to me an overwhelming interest in these monies NOT being spent today, as the council has thus far allowed. OVERWHELMING.
Will I get enough signatures in the short time frame allowed? Probably not… but It certainly will be a significant number… all things considered .. and as a statistical sample, a clear message!
victor
Charlene and Ross,
Thank you for the excellent point about approaching the businesses directly. I will send a note expressing my concern. The Ole store food is delicious, indeed! Being a pretty thoughtful person, I am not sure why I did not think of this myself!
Regarding the Summa’s, Ross, you are correct it should not play out on LG. I will be more circumspect with my comments.
An explanation offered and then the END: They used to be very close personal friends. Over the past year some of their remarks/positions just seriously troubled me and I feel compelled to comment because I know others fear retribution.
Again, thank you for the reminder!
Victor,
Please leave my brother out of your comments. Anything you have to say should be directed to me and me only. I do applaud your civic engagement and never stated any “moral violation”! I do appreciate your insights on Northfield’s Sunday visitors!
Victor -
Bone-headed or brilliant, convoluted or poetic…but never boring and always outside the (big) box.
But if a clear message falls in the wilderness, will the Council hear it?
- Ross
Victor:
Can you give a rough count of how many signatures you have, how many are needed, and when is the deadline? It might motivate some readers to sign it.
Gathering signed and notarized petitions … sort of running …
Just bounced back to the ol Mac and seeing Jerold’s message, thought i’d comment briefly.
Realistically there’s not much hope of finding a breathing petition site any longer at this moment other than a possible at Tiny’s or the Cow
DEADLINE is 4 PM this afternoon (9/3/08)
I’m estimating at 383 at 12:50, just past noon.
Unofficially, I was told I needed 430.
Being a CUB fan, I’m energized by these numbers. As Ernie Banks said: “Let’s play two!”
Thanx for all the support we got from those who signed and special thanx to those who never questioned being involved, as Martha Cashman postulated there might be.
Al…so, one should give a nod to the media. The N News helped put this on the RADAR and LGN focused attention to the issue.
Media … gotta wonder.
victor
Jerold: Victor is off to City hall with the petition pages, as today was the last day. There will almost certainly not be the required number, but there should be over three hundred, I would guess … and that should be enough to make the Council “do the right thing” of their own volition.
Thanks to everyone who helped, and to those who signed, for the sake of having a voice in the decision.
kiffi…
So Here are the unofficial results. Last minute flurries of activity … picking up notarized sheets dodging bulldozers on Division Street, at 3:40 PM I rolled into City Hall and deposited an unofficial count of 405 signatures with City Clerk, Deb Little.
On my way to a 4 PM meeting, I got a cell phone call from David Hvistendahl … who had his bunch from Froggy Bottoms. I asked him if he could take them to Ms. Little as I was on a tight schedule. He said he would and that he thought he had about 60 signatures. 465!
Some of these will not pass the sufficiency test, i’m sure … but we did make an impact … and on a short time basis as well.
My unoffical understanding is we needed 5% of the vote from the last regular election. My records (Kiffi’s) show that count to be 8582.
429 would be 5%!
It’s gonna be close .. and in my humble … we win on the principle of the question. I’m confident given another week we could have topped 800 with no more volunteers … just a few more days.
The people have spoken … will the council listen?
thanx again!
I guess I don’t understand the logic…The bare minimum for the petition is 430 in a town of nearly 20,000 people. The petitioners failed to get even that and still it shows the council should do what the minority demands.
It seems the people haven’t spoken. This is like saying we lost the Superbowl by only a few points, so we should be declared the winners.
If the opponents of the mayor had gathered 400 signatures, would the mayor have resigned?
Victor: I still don’t understand what the petition, even if adequate, requires of the Council. Does it require them to act at all?
Anne: The petition doesn’t “win” anything. It allows the citizens of Northfield to vote on whether or not he city should spend over $1 million on renovating city hall.
The rules for a reverse referandum are in place and allow the citizens to put it to a ballot if they can get enough signatures--measured based on the number of voters, not residents. And since this is always a difficult proposition and more difficult than voting, the number is only a fraction of those that vote --to get citizens to sign a petition that requires the sponsors to educate the electorate--which means contacting enough of them.
It was speculated earlier in this blog that the city purposely forced the vote on this issue early in August to end-run any citizen objection since it is such a difficult time due to vacations, kids getting back in school, and no one is paying enough attention to governmental functions.
Anne, if you think the citizens should not have a say-so and should just follow the wisdom (or folly) of their elected officials and pay with their taxes until they can elect new representatives, that is also a position. However, if the petition is successful, you may have to vote on it.
Some citizens felt that this was too much money to let it go without the citizens voicing their concerns.
I believe there is a similar rule if the citizen’s had wanted to recall the mayor and there was a threshold for signatures--I don’t remember if the number is the same 5% of prior voter turnout--but no one was interested enough to start and complete such a petition--or not as interested and motivated as the pretitioners described herein.
David L, I agree with the premise of your question--the city council does not have to act except to delay any action on the project until after the referandum IF the petition is successful.
However, it would seem that a city councilor who is now made aware of citizen concerns over high spending might want to rethink their support of the project, and invest in getting more citizen input and communicating more clearly their reasoning for supporting such a large expenditure.
There seems to be a general disregard for citizen input--by city councils everywhere, not just Northfield--if the same people raise concerns every meeting.
Unfortunately city council meetings (everywhere) are generally poorly attended--thus we get citizens claiming
“WHAT!?! They are spending money (or changing something or starting a project of changing a park)--they can’t do that--they need to tell me about these things.”
…while the city council claims that anyone could have come to the meeting and commented and had their input.
(Of course, the citizen is ignored if he/she has spoken frequently to the city council, AND the input is before the discussion of the topic and before the citizens can hear what the council thinks, so they cannot directly comment on the discussion until the next council meeting.)
The petition asks the Council to put the City Hall project to a vote. Issuance of CIP bonds doesn’t require a referendum -- but has a “reverse referendum” component to it. This means that the community can launch a petition drive that would force a vote on the issuance of the CIP bonds for the project. This is what Victor has done.
If a valid petition is received, then Council would have to 1) hold a referendum before proceeding with the issuance of the CIP bonds. As for the project itself, the Council could also consider alternate financing or drop the project altogether (do nothing) or delay the project until some future date.
Anne Bretts in #38 wrote ..
There you go again, Victor, twisting my words and distorting my statement and, seemingly trying to pick a fight with or discredit me.
Ross and Griff, perhaps you could reprimand Victor, as well.
I NEVER questioned you or others regarding your civic involvement on this issue. As stated in my post #32 I applauded your involvement and passion.
In my post #27 I simply stated that I was surprised that a business that relies on the support of all Northfielders would choose or, seemingly endorse, a particular position given the divisive nature of the political scene.
And, by the way I love the Ole Store, Tiny’s Dogs (been scarfing those down since the ’70′s), have been a frequent diner at Chapati’s (ask Nashir), the Cow, Froggy Bottoms and the Reubenstein. I joined the Just Food Co-op within five days of moving to Northfield
I DID NOT ATTACK YOU PERSONALLY nor DID I QUESTION YOUR RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION in post #27.
Post #27 simply implied that I did not want to risk a run-in with you like I had back in December at City Hall where, by the way, I too was expressing my right to freedom of expression and civic participation. I did not want to run the risk of you ‘getting up in my face’ (I have quite a few witnesses who asked you to take your issues with me outside).
Victor: I understand Ms. McBride’s post to state that an election only has to be held (assuming sufficient signatures) if the City wants to proceed with the project as is with CIP bonds. The Council has other options as well.
Thanks Victor and Jane, I do understand the law and I’m not opposed to a citizen vote, if citizens feel they need one. Clearly, if you get 430 votes, you win a referendum.
If you don’t it means not enough citizens felt it was necessary. What I question is the logic that says that if a small group of people don’t meet the minimum threshold for a referendum that the city should have to go to the expense of holding one anyway.
And we elect officials for a reason, to make the decisions. The reverse referendum, like the recall, is designed to give the public a chance to address a serious problem between elections.
My reference to the mayor was that if a group had fallen short of the 430 signatures, I’m quite sure that the mayor wouldn’t have supported a recall election and Victor would have been quite vocal about how the petition fell short and the rules are the rules, and so on.
Fact is that many people who wanted a recall felt that it wasn’t worth the expense or effort so close to a regular election. And it was cold and people were in Arizona for the winter, and some were on vacation…
So, the rules are the rules. There’s never a good time to have to go out for signatures. Mounting a recall or reverse referendum isn’t easy. That’s the point. The public had a chance to voice its opposition and didn’t.
BTW, I would have preferred that the city finish the CIP and put the whole thing out there for public review. And I might support a referendum on that if I felt the plan didn’t get a fair hearing or was outrageous. But I find it odd that people didn’t push for a referendum when the city was twisting the rules to get a poorly planned $3 million swimming pool, but are opposed to basic improvements to City Hall.
This just seems to be another City Hall bashing drama and not a real effort to solve problems.
I’m late to the discussion, but I fail to see what all the fuss is about. The City isn’t asking for a palace here — they’re asking for some minor improvements to a building that’s barely been touched since it was an elementary school. It still has those coat hooks in the hallways!
I am not a property owner in the city of Northfield, but if I were, I’d like to think that I wouldn’t be too offended by such a minor sum for an important purpose. At least we’re no longer talking about building a new city hall.
Sean
Thank you for stating what I consider the obvious. Perhaps if the “staff” has a decent/safe office environment perhaps they will be friendlier to the many demands from the citizens of NF.
Posted to the Nfld News at 6pm: Petition for bonding referendum being verified.
Out of the mouths of babes…
Thanks indeed, Sean, for showing the wisdom lacking in many far older than you.
Yes, Sean and Anne, $880,000 plus all the other work that will make it top over ONE MILLION DOLLARS for “minor” improvements to a building that has been renovated about 20 times since they moved in is really just chump change. Who are the chumps? Of course, young Sean is not a taxpayer.
A million dollars is a minor amount? Sean, you should consider running for public office, you will fit right in.