Ice now, ice later, or ice as-is?

I believe you do need a subscription to our beloved Northfield News to read the online edition… unlike the startrib, the NY Times, the Washington Post….But, yeah, with the recent addition of Grif as Editor I hope this policy can be looked at…

With your competitors offering free online access and your affinity for the internet I hope you consider following the lead of the times, and the strib and giving us free access.

From the computers i access the nfld news i am unable to get to the letters to the editor. The letter dates appear but not the content. Also, a snipit of content appears for many items (news) but access to the stories is denied without a loggin code… Maybe they could impose a Northfield News Select option like the times so we could access certain portions of the paper.

Thanks for the email to the new editor but really i would perfer to continue thinking that Griff was the new guy in charge.

Griff: I’m with you regarding the City’s decision to go forward on the pool project without a public vote. As much as the community may want an amenity like a pool or an ice arena, the law in Minnesota is pretty clear that citizens must authorize such spending through voter referendums. Using the taxing authority of the HRA EDA to build a pool is almost unethical. Almost. Pretty close to the line. I hope the City Council will not make the same decision on new indoor ice.

I can’t recall exactly, but I think it was 1998 when the City offered citizens a chance to approve a public referendum for a new outdoor aquatic center. I was the City Administrator and Randy Distad was the Parks & Rec Director. The bond issue was defeated by less than 100 votes. It was very close, but citizens said no. We did not consider the “lease-revenue bond” scheme because the State Legislature did not give taxing and borrowing authority to City EDA’s and HRA’s to build public swimming pools, for goodnessake. Those taxing and borrowing powers are supposed to be reserved for doing truly necessary things in a community, such as blight removal, urban redevelopment or economic development. Not building outdoor swimming pools and indoor ice arenas.

I hope you do get both Council and EDA to comment, Griff. In a small town, and without indepth/investigative news reporting, often the actions of these two bodies are not “transparent” enough. And way too often, one city board or commision will make demeaning remarks about another boards decision, as if one is doing their job and another is not taking their job seriously. (there is a recent example of this which I’ll leave unspecified here).
There was , however, so much discussion of the new swimming pool at the time, albeit mostly the two neighborhood groups, that anyone could have started a larger, more widespread, community conversation.
One wonders why the newspaper does not see this as a way to both serve the community and raise readership.

Hello Group,

I pulled a letter from my files I wrote to the city council in late 2005 before we voted on the pool issue. Substitute “hockey rink” or “liquor store” or any other capital item for pool – the issue is still unresolved. We are starting to work on a Capital Improvements Plan that balances funding needs with funding sources but I think we are 6 months away from getting a good working document.

It is a long letter for this venue, but, what can I say, I’m a long winded politician.

December 14, 2005

Fellow Councilors and Mayor,

I am writing to you today to inform you that I believe I have made a mistake in judgment with regard to the city pool replacement project. Like many concerned citizens involved in the project, I have narrowly focused on the details required to expeditiously replace a broken pool with a new pool ready for the 2007 summer season. Should the pool be this big, or that big? Where exactly should it be located in Memorial Field? How will it affect the neighbors? Is a kiddy pool important? Is a 50 meter length important?

Unfortunately, until recently I have not thought more strategically about how this large taxpayer investment may affect our ability to meet other equally important future city infrastructure needs, recreation or otherwise, that lie in our future.

I now believe committing a large amount of money to fulfill one kind of recreation need, namely summertime outdoor swimming, may significantly diminish the city’s ability to provide the broad spectrum of community infrastructure needs we will most assuredly need to provide over the next two decades.

The budget for the current pool is set at about 3 million dollars. To fund this pool without a referendum, the city intends to request the Economic Development Authority to finance and build the pool through purchasing a 20 year bond. The city will then lease the pool from the EDA at a cost of about $250,000 per year. Along with the lease payment, my estimate is that the city will need to provide an additional $50,000 per year to subsidize its operation (this is only an estimate since there is currently no business plan itemizing our expected revenues and expenses). Therefore, the pool will cost the citizens of Northfield about $300,000 per year for the next 20 years.

If no other sources of revenue are found or no other expenses in the city are reduced, I calculate bringing the pool back as planned will result in a tax increase of about 6 percent in 2007. In the short term, I suspect this amount of money to a community like ours, one that has a strong tax base coupled with a strong desire to provide for its children, will not be an unbearable burden.

The problem comes when we want to do the next great, important, necessary city infrastructure project.

If we purchase the 3 million dollar pool now, financed by a 20 year mortgage, what future community investment opportunities are we willing to forego or postpone over that time period because we have already allocated a substantial percentage of our finite bonding capacity? Will it be a new indoor ice complex when our current facility meets a fate similar to our late pool? Will it be the 5 million dollar library expansion planned in 2008? Will it be the 4 million dollar new Safety Center planned in 2010? Will it be a teen community center when we realize that the current Key facility is woefully insufficient to provide community support to all of our teenagers? Will it become clear to us when we want to fund a community art and theater building for those in our community who may not equate recreation only with exercise? Will we understand the real cost of the new pool when our annual $300,000 a year pool payment combined with a downturn in the economy requires us to forego our planned future neighborhood park improvements or expansions.

The fact is, because our city wide five year capital improvements plan does not reconcile our “wants” with our “ability to pay”, it is unknown to me what projects we will not fund in our plan by committing to a $300,000 per year pool payment over the next 20 years. More specifically, in the area of recreation, we have not relied on our recreation provider (Community Ed. And Rec.) to assist us in the prudent allocation of scare resources amongst many competing recreational needs. Is this pool the best, most efficient way to meet our recreation goals? Knowing we have many different constituents to serve, have we applied the “appropriate balance” rule to this project like we do so often when allocating scarce resources in other areas of city business?

The pool is broken and we want a new one – now. For some in our community that is enough. For me, I now realize that simple statement it is not enough. I need to know how our new pool fits into our overall long term recreation and capital plans, including impact on taxes.

Without a full time administrator, without a director of finance, and without a recreation department, it seems to me we are moving forward on our largest investment since the NCRC building with limited professional support. The Park Board and staff are focused almost entirely on the pool’s physical shape and location, not on its ongoing operation or its financial impact on our future ability to provide other needed new capital investments in the city. These “bigger picture” issues are our responsibility.

I believe I made a mistake by not thinking and speaking clearly on this in June. In good conscience, I can’t add to my mistake by not thinking and speaking clearly on this in December.

Until I see a long term recreation plan and a long term financial plan; until I can tell the citizens what we might be giving up by going forward; I cannot support a new pool project.

To help me put this project in city wide perspective, I am requesting that this issue, namely, the impact of a new pool on our long term recreation plan and our capital improvements plan, be an agenda item as soon as our schedule permits.

Perhaps after we place the pool project in the context of an overall plan, we will determine that we do, indeed, have the capacity to move forward with the pool as planned without major impact on other equally or more important projects. If so, I will wholeheartedly support the pool and will apologize to all of you for any delays in the pool project due to my mistaken concern over not having a plan.

As always, thanks for listening,

Jim