http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/city-liq-rfp-final-9-24-08-with-changes-1.pdf

If honor is not satisfied I suggest wet fish at 10 paces. Either that or a pint on me at P&P.

http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/whatsnew/liq/2008/11/05/rfp_for_new_municipal_liquor_store2

The public notice for the RFP can be found on the Northfield News site:

http://www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStoryPrinter=46088

The salient details, from the public notice:

TO OBTAIN PROPOSAL INFORMATION: Proposal information is available on the City Web Site (http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/) or a printed copy may be requested and obtained at the Northfield City Hall, Engineering Office, 801 Washington Street, Northfield MN 55057 for a (non-refundable) fee of $5.00. Please contact us at (507) 645-3020.

Knock yourself out! And I’d love it if you’d share your views with the rest of us if you actually get a copy of the RFP. I haven’t seen it.

That helps, but I am looking for the baseline criteria, such as location, zoning, square footage criteria, accessibility, parking, etc. that was asked of the individuals submitting to the RFP.

Anyone know where I can read a copy of that? I am not looking for the submissions. I am looking for the required criteria of the property to be submitted.

I just want to get a little more educated about it. Perhaps a visit or call to city hall? (I will bring a roll of quarters for copies… [Grin!] )

Thanks!

Thank you for a great response to the question. Very enlightening in its background nature and process. All things can be improved if a group looks back on what they did.

In response to your question posed about the NN in post #28:

Just in closing, John T, I’m curious whether those of you who are on the N News’ Advisory group would comment on the outcome of your effort.

You must have a sense of “purpose” and a “success failure” ratio in bringing influence.

1. What effort? We basically get together to discuss how a story was covered and end up in a heated face-to-face debate, somewhat like here, only IRL.

2. The only purposes for me joining the group are:
a) gets me out of the house.
b) gets me off-line, and communicating with real humans
c) allows me to meet interesting people.
d) lets me ask questions directly of the NN, get perspective, and better understand some of the things that are going on by getting additional information or asking questions.

I hope that the NN gets something out of listening to my opinions, and I am not sure there have been any actionable items that come from our meetings.

Much of what we discuss other than the stories, has to do with layout, style, continuity within the paper, and of course, the website. However, the website comments are usually limited to the posting of articles outside of the paper, and the limitations of the web system they are using.

I do not have a purpose or motive, other than trying to meet new people in new settings to broaden my understanding of Northfield and network with others. Success / Failure is based upon the enjoyment of the interaction and debate.

It seems that 90% of my day between work and working on my masters, is in front of “the square headed flat-panel mistress”. Any opportunity to interact with folks in a manner other than online, and other than at work is a treasured commodity. Even online, we do many online live meetings, so you do not actually get to meet folks.

Griff, (and LGN) thanks for the allowance of this digression from the original topic everyone. And Victor, thanks again for the response. It shed some additional light on the process.

Back to debating the proposals… Any idea if the Mr. Movies site would meet the RFP?

I need to read the RFP post from Tracy. And Tracy, thanks for posting it as well!

With interest in the 7 submitted Requests for Proposals, I’ve asked the City Attorney to provide some information on the release of data pertaining to these RFP’s. There is clear law in the data practices act, which the City must follow and makes most of the RFP proposal data nonpublic until the evaluation process is complete because of the City potentially negotiating for the purchase of property. This classification is mandatory; the city cannot waive this classification.

Our City Attorney provided a summary of the relevant provisions of Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.591, Business Data:

1. All data in the responses is nonpublic until the responses are opened.

2. Once the responses are opened, the names of the responders are read and become public.

3. All other data in the responses is nonpublic until completion of the evaluation process.

4. “Completion of the evaluation process” means that the city has completed negotiating a contract with the selected vendor.

5. After that point, all remaining data submitted by all responders are public with the exception of “trade secret data” as defined and classified in section 13.37. However, all responders to this RFP were asked
1to sign a consent for release of response data, so there should not be any concern about releasing the data after a contract is finalized, except for any financial statements submitted to the city under separate confidential cover (this exception appears in the consent for release of response data).

6. If all responses are rejected prior to completion of the evaluation process, all data other than the names of the responders remains nonpublic until a resolicitation of the RFP results in completion of the evaluation process, or a determination is made to abandon the purchase.

7. If the rejection occurs after the completion of the evaluation process, the data remain public.

8. If a resolicitation of proposals does not occur within 1 year of the proposal opening date, the remaining data become public.

9. Data created or maintained by the city as part of the selection or evaluation process are protected nonpublic data until completion of the selection or completion of the evaluation process, at which time the data are public except for any “trade secret data” (there should be none in this case because of the consent for release signed by the responders, except that financial statements may remain confidential).

As a member of the EDA, I asked similar questions of staff, re their process for the scoring etc., not to challenge, but more for clarity in what is expected. AT that time, answers were slim in detail and slow in coming and ephemeral in nature (I thought) and over the weeks of our various EDA meetings, lacked continuity [sic] clarity. In fact, I even brought up the point, I had a strong preconceived feeling about the re-siting, and had expressed it publicly as a citizen and a candidate, and indeed held it as one of seven of the EDA’s, not knowing the other’s

As I recall, my perspective was not viewed by staff, as a problem. Or, at least unique!

Those “FAILINGS” (lack of complete and well thought out directions) are the kind of syndrome that many of the more observant persons commenting here on LG (IMHO) …. might have issue with, and in perhaps in someway, inadvertently, due to my questions at the EDA, passed (or at least posed) the LG Test, that being a more influential (or informed) vetting than many issues receive in the N News.

What was lacking here In my humble opinion was good leadership and innovative thinking.

John’s question of WHO might have better scored the locations is also RIGHT on.

I’d put that under the heading of, Innovative Thinking.

Way back before I was on the EDA, I frequently commented (at council open mic and when there was public opinion taken at the EDA) that, receiving Council direction,the EDA should weigh-in on the controversy of the Liquor Store siting and using their broader partnership relations, seek recommendations.

Frankly, the EDA response to that, expressed the concern: “Why would we (EDA) want to get into that?

NOTHING came from the council in response to my Open Mic comments. Not even from the Council’s two EDA members.

In response to John T’s question, I’d speculate that a simple and better process, on multiple levels, could have been as follows:

1. Council asks their EDA to take-on the economic questions of possibly re-siting the LiqStore.

2. The EDA, having the time to focus on the question and, having cost saving methods, use one of their tools, its partner organization, the NDDC, to do the leg work. One obvious improvement, a broader and more diverse scoring group than the EDA In Fill Committee alone.

SEE Jon’s question

is it possible that the city could have done this differently and had a team of neutral folks do the scoring based on the criteria?

I mean, have it scored by someone other than the EDA?

3.USING THE NDDC: The NDDC, the quintessential task oriented organization, and incidentally already on the EDA pay role as it were.

This would have included much of the (non specialized) expensive consultant WORK answering questions so closely associated to the community, and its goal(s) in this, WORK completed by local citizens who know the “territory” and in this case, are fully informed and equipped in meeting the council FIRST criterion: Keeping in the LiqStore DT.

This has been a process used in the past. One that quickly comes to mind was the leg work on the Walker Associates Parking Study of a few years back. Saved the city a lot of money.

So, bringing this comment up-to-date, THE SCORING, how it might have been?

The NDDC ER committee would likely have been the team scoring the RFP proposals.

PROBLEM!: Kiffi and victor are both card carrying members of the ER!

Which begs another question .. one that Kiffi asks here frequently, Why don’t more of you get involved?
How do you do the smiling face thing?

Just in closing, John T, I’m curious whether those of you who are on the N News’ Advisory group would comment on the outcome of your effort. I understand that you John, as well as Paul Fried, Bill McGrath, Phil Spensley and Anne Bretts … all frequent users of this BLOG are members of that group. You must have a sense of “purpose” and a “success failure” ratio in bringing influence. We’ve read Anne’s feelings, and a bit from John. Might any others comment? It seems to me the N News is part of the controversy … a big part. Are you helping?

And of course, Anne and John are welcome to add more of their perspective.

John, I don’t see the RFP on the city’s web site, although Bonnie mentions in her blog post that Joel sent it to her.
http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/post/6582/

Northfield News is reporting that Mr. Movies is closing.

Would that location work in regards to square footage, location, delivery access, handicap accessibility, parking, etc. etc?

Seems like that location is a bit bigger than the muni, but you would have to take some space for storage and coolers.

Is the RFP criteria available somewhere so that I can become educated on what it is looking for?

I mean, have it scored by someone other than the EDA? Just trying to get a feel for why the EDA was used, especially when there were delays in the scoring based on the fact that some EDA members were asked to not score due to possible conflicts of interest.

Again, just trying to understand the process.

And Ann has it exactly right. The advisory board doesn’t have anything to do with the operation of the newspaper. As many of us have explained repeatedly, we are a group of citizens who come in a handful of times a year to give our feedback on some of the news stories, layout, style, and other issues directly related to the paper.

We only provide them with opinions and feedback.

Ross, to answer your question, our being on the board is irrelevant to your question. Who cares? If we do support it, what difference does it make, and if we don’t, its not like we have any “pull” to do anything about it.

The only opinion you will get from me is that I spent 20 years in the service of this great country to protect everyone’s first amendment right to free speech… So if you wish to go out in public and make a public spectacle of yourself (anonymous or otherwise) then so be it.

However, I also like to think I am a person of honor and integrity, and if I am going to say something bad about you, it will be face-to-face, and one-on-one.

Yes, I have made my mistakes in this forum on occasion, and have been moderated, but I have learned from them, and I do not recall engaging in harsh personal attacks. I do however speak up when I think something is not right, or someone made a poor decision. That is not a personal attack, that is one mans opinion of another persons actions. You can still like the person, or not… and still not approve of what they do.

I am headed over to read the “Sticking to the Plan” thread now, as I have not had the time previously. I am sure I will see something that will bother me in some way, as there is more than likely something there for everyone.

Ross, can you explain further why Anne’s opinion or my opinion, and being on the NNAB makes any difference to the postings on Northfield News? Its not like we can change the policy of the Northfield News. All we can do is express an opinion either way, just like everyone else does… Feel free to e-mail or call Jaci or Sam… the number is on thier website.

And Ross, great picture of you with the doughnut and the shirt!

I suggest that your post remains, as written, right where it is.

Or…on this point, Patrick, you have your head firmly up your ass…by Anonymous (please, Griff, let this stand ‘cos the impact of that is what Kiffi has to deal with on the NNEWS website). No offence, Patrick.

Such a policy, if it were implemented over there, should be able to deal with the kinds of problems you cite -- without requiring names to be attached to posts.

Two things occur: first, the exchange is the finest example of why anonymous blogging should not be countenanced; second it is obvious that ‘they’ are totally unconcerned with your sound reasoning, your fine intelligence, your precise references, your revealing questions, your worthy motives -- they seek only your (and Victor’s) ‘demise’ and, to this end, will say anything to keep you involved, responding, offended, agitated and sleepless.

You are casting pearls before swine and, as I’ve said before, the best thing about banging your head against a brick wall is that it feels marvellous when you stop.

So, please, Kiffi, ignore it and them. And by the end of the year, they will have torn each other’s throats out for the want of a target. Stick to Locally Grown (unless and until the ‘anonymous’ policy is discontinued -- in which case most of the current commentators will have nothing to say, methinks).