Much has been happening with the Comprehensive Plan in the last couple of months. I’ve updated the Northfield 2045 pages with more links to documents, maps, and other information about where we are now. Your comments are welcome (subject to the moderation guidelines below).
I’d say we’re getting to the really fun part now.
The early engagement phase is always interesting; we learn what the community values about Northfield as well as the places or activities we should improve. The vision phase is a challenge to take all that input and distill it to a short statement about future Northfield. The Planning Commission and Steering Committee tested and improved how we say things to capture the right tone and intention.
Now the consultants are reading all our plans and mining them sketch recommendations for the future in the Analysis segment. This should be when we learn about how earlier choices created challenges we face now or set us up for success. It should also be when we consider what we carry forward from earlier policies, what is now obsolete, and how we revise our planning based on what we’ve learned from the community and current policy. It’s problem-solving time, in other words.
After this, the consultants start drafting the plan. Here’s what I’ll be working toward in the plan:
1. Policy direction will be more focused. There will not be that much policy change from the last two comprehensive plans. The public engagement, steering committee, vision and values all reinforce the direction established earlier. Northfield needs to refine and amplify current policy direction for affordable housing, better streets, climate action, and planning/prioritizing city investment from aspirational statements to commitments to action.
2. Implementation goals: The biggest change I’m working toward is ensuring this plan leads directly to implementation including revising city code, improving project design, consolidating all the other plans, and giving the Council better tools for evaluating the fiscal impact of projects. Earlier plans did not prioritize projects or tie planning to the budget and capital improvement plan; this plan will change that. Further, the plan will be more holistic. Rather than having a chapter for housing, one for transportation, one for climate, etc. the goal is to ensure that transportation is integral to land use (and vice versa), housing and economic development cannot be separated, and climate and equity will be the lenses through which all actions are viewed.
3. Easy and intuitive to use: The 2008 plan is almost 170 pages of repetitive and ponderous prose with ten goals, 53 objectives, and 279 (!?!!) strategies which are not prioritized. After 15 years and a lot of post-it notes, I think I can navigate it relatively well (but that’s just the land use chapter). Northfield 2045 is going to be shorter, intuitive, prioritized, and accessible to the community as well as developers, city staff, and other expert users. It is going to coordinate all the plans (and archive some).
4. Guide for capital planning and budgeting: No comprehensive plan nor the strategic plan (which is neither strategic nor a plan) has yet done what it needs to do which is guide capital planning and city budgeting. Having a wonderful vision is useless unless Northfield can be economically sustainable. No, I don’t know how this will all be accomplished yet.
Join the conversation.
Comments are moderated and require a full name for transparency and accountability. I don’t play “invisible dodgeball” where anonymous people throw comments and insults at me. I try to respond to all questions and often like to ask some, too.
What’s good: questions of all sorts, comments from your perspective, thoughtful criticism (which can be very critical) and requests/demands for more information.
What I screen out: anonymous comments, comments without full names or with obvious screen names, personal attacks (on elected officials, city staff, other commenters, or anyone else) and unsubstantiated claims about the intentions of other people or city government.
The official page says “A Comprehensive Plan is a guidebook for the city looking 20 years into the future. It starts by defining a shared vision with the community then developing steps toward achieving that vision.”
This is true but incomplete. Comprehensive planning is not just about the vision of Northfield in 20 years, but intended to create a better city with particular emphasis on making a city economically sustainable by anticipating development and the public services needed to support it.
Comprehensive planning got going in the 1960s along with urban renewal (Northfield’s first plan was funded with urban renewal grant dollars). In Minnesota, comp plans are a child of this 1965 state policy:
“The legislature finds that municipalities are faced with mounting problems in providing means of guiding future development of land so as to insure a safer, more pleasant and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public activities, to preserve agricultural and other open lands, and to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Municipalities can prepare for anticipated changes and by such preparations bring about significant savings in both private and public expenditures. Municipal planning, by providing public guides to future municipal action, enables other public and private agencies to plan their activities in harmony with the municipality’s plans. Municipal planning will assist in developing lands more wisely to serve citizens more effectively, will make the provision of public services less costly, and will achieve a more secure tax base.”
Preparing for “anticipated changes” is the challenge. Twenty years ago, we were in the middle of a housing and development boom and I had dial-up internet. Safe to say Northfield did not anticipate the housing bust, the explosion of the internet, Covid-19 and remote work, electric vehicles and more. Certainly not anticipated in the 2001 Comp Plan, anyway.
Looking ahead twenty years, we need to set goals for the kind of place we want Northfield to be and then bet on how many people will move here, how the climate will change, what technology will be developed, and what work will look like (to name a few) and what Northfield will need to do to accommodate these changes sustainably.
City of the Future as imagined in the Past: What should Future Northfield look like?
How will we get there?
Over on my unofficial Northfield 2045 page, you’ll find links to posts, documents, and information about the process and the content. These are all still taking shape, so stay tuned for updates. My goal is to make the City process as transparent as possible and as clear as possible beyond what may be posted on the official website.
Join the conversation.
Comments are moderated and require a full name for transparency and accountability. I don’t play “invisible dodgeball” where anonymous people throw comments and insults at me. I try to respond to all questions and often like to ask some, too.
What’s good: questions of all sorts, comments from your perspective, thoughtful criticism (which can be very critical) and requests/demands for more information.
What I screen out: anonymous comments, comments without full names or with obvious screen names, personal attacks (on elected officials, city staff, other commenters, or anyone else) and unsubstantiated claims about the intentions of other people or city government.
I have been spending a lot of time as the unofficial historian of bike, pedestrian and street planning over on Facebook, so I decided to put together a quick history of how we got here. This is the bullet point list with links to the full documents on the City of Northfield website.
2001 Comprehensive Plan: This plan highlighted biking as an “appropriate local mode of transportation and called for designating bike routes, building trails, and providing bike parking.
2006 Greenway Corridor Plan: Initiated by citizens, this plan created a network of regional trails following natural features linked by trails and bikeways through Northfield. The East Cannon River Trail is one facility built from this plan, as well as preserving trail/green corridors in new development.
2008 Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan: Mostly about off-street trails for recreation (it’s a Park plan, after all), but ahead of its time in considering the different kinds of riders and the safe connections needed from neighborhoods to trails. It also anticipated the Complete Streets policy by four years in advocating a Complete Streets approach. The plan map was the first bike system map.
Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan
2008 Comprehensive Plan: This plan pushed back against the many acres of suburban, single family home development in the early 2000s and calls for developing places where it is easy to walk and bike with connected streets, designing local streets with sidewalks, bikeways and narrower street widths.
2008 Transportation Plan: This one begins to look at non-motorized transportation as part of the transportation network (although scooters, ebikes and other things with small wheels, motors and batteries should also be included), but still pretty car-focused.
2009 Safe Routes to School Plan: The Northfield Non-Motorized Transportation Task Force, a subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, wrote a grant to develop the Safe Routes to School plan. Precipitated by the difficulties getting to Bridgewater Elementary and the Middle School, this plan studied schools, interviewed families, and recommended improvements for helping kids walk and bike to school including the roundabout at 246 and Jefferson Parkway. This plan prioritizes walking and biking connections near schools, such as the 2023 Maple Street protected bikeway and current Lincoln Parkway study.
2012 Complete Streets Policy: Carleton students (with some Olaf student participation) instigated this policy and did the work of building community support to urge the Council to draft a policy which it did. This document is used to consider the facilities needed on each street project to fulfill the goal of streets serving “all ages and abilities.”
2019 Climate Action Plan: Biking and walking are included as ways to help reduce Northfield’s carbon footprint.
2019 Bike, Pedestrian and Trail Plan update: This is where the implementation starts ramping up. This plan update reviewed all the previous plans and made recommendations for the kinds of facilities needed in different contexts and updated the system plan shown above. Staff and consultants rely heavily on this map when designing street projects.
2022 Pedestrian and Bikeway Analyzation: This report goes even further toward implementation and provides the policy and design background for current projects: “The purpose of this report is to identify how projects identified in the 2022–2026 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) can be organized to provide the most benefit to people walking and bicycling in Northfield.” This includes cross sections of roadways included in the CIP projects and new policy for “quick build” designs. This was approved unanimously by the City Council.
Many of commenters over on Facebook complain about the wisdom of bike lanes or other street design changes as stupid, a waste of money, and (my favorite) that the city is governed by “tyrants.” However, the Council (5 different mayors and many different Council members and complete staff turnover) has received public support over twenty years for better walking and biking. Changing this trajectory is possible, but it will take significantly more effort and organizing than complaining on social media or speaking at a few Council meetings.
None of the above should be construed as an official response (I chair the Planning Commission, but I cannot speak for the Commission or the City) or an endorsement of particular projects and policies (I’ve got my own concerns and criticisms about how the City has done this work even if I’m generally very pro-bike).
Ole Avenue is St. Olaf’s planned residence hall/townhome project:
Artist’s rendering of the view up St. Olaf Avenue (Image: St. Olaf)
This is an exciting project, mostly. New residence halls and townhomes will bring students back on campus, St. Olaf Avenue will be reinforced as the tree-lined entrance to the campus from downtown and the pretty, shady campus look and feel will extend further down The Hill. Older, increasingly dilapidated homes which have been used as the Honor Houses will be replaced with state of the art, purpose-built student housing. It’s a more people-scaled project than Olaf’s high rise dorms and much easier to integrate into the neighborhood. All good.
Less wonderfully, the City Council has had two frustrating discussions focused on irrelevant issues, but managing to steer clear of the big questions; now they are about to take action on February 16, 2020.
Quite a lot of these
The Issue
This development, because it is at the edge of the campus zoning, requires a conditional use permit or CUP. Student residence halls are permitted in this area. If they were permitted “by right” St. Olaf could file their plans and city staff would sign off on it with no public review. Instead, they are permitted, but require an additional layer of public review to grant the conditional use permit because this use, in this zone, in this location is deemed to have the potential to create significant impact to the surrounding property and the community.
In short, there is not much discretion to deny the permit (because the use is permitted) if it meets the requirements of our zoning code, but there is the (golden) opportunity to impose conditions which limit the impact of the more intense use on the neighborhood and the community: “The benefits of the conditional use outweigh the potential negative effects to the surrounding area or community” in terms of such things as traffic, light, noise, and the overall character of the residential neighborhood.
I went to the Planning Commission meeting concerned about impacts to west-of-Lincoln neighbors from loading zones and security lighting; the huge amount of surface parking and the lighting, stormwater, and traffic it could create looked completely out of scale for the location. I was struck by how much space St. Olaf has devoted to storing cars compared to the spaces for people and the jaw-dropping mismatch between their lofty sustainability policies and what they have proposed.
Look at the footprint of the buildings for people compared to the space devoted to storing empty cars used occasionally.
To guide our discussion, commissioner Will Schroeer took a bottom-up approach and counted parking spaces, read the code and the policy documents, marshaled evidence about parking impacts and assembled a very thoughtful memo for the PC (which you should read). It confirmed there was already enough parking on campus and the new parking should be considered “excessive parking” (not allowed by our code) and approval should add the condition that new parking should be removed.
Based on his analysis and my own policy commitments to climate action and better streets, I voted to make what I believe is a very intentional, well-supported recommendation to Council to approve the CUP with the additional condition. The parking lots will encourage driving, add security lighting, increase stormwater runoff, and be an incompatible addition to the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval with the condition to remove new parking which has turned out to be a very challenging condition for the Council.
Process
CUPs should be pretty routine. Staff presents the Planning Commission recommendation to the Council along with the materials they prepared for the public hearing and a summary of the input from the community and commissioners. The Council then votes and they can factor in political issues and other priorities which the PC did not, but if they disagree they are required to send their reasoning to the PC in writing.
In January, City staff brought the CUP to the Council noting briefly that the Planning Commission unanimously approved the CUP with the condition of removing new parking, but moving on to the staff recommendation eliminating that condition with the justification that many of the stalls are “replacement” stalls from Honor House demolition and “insufficient accommodation is likely to result in more parking in adjacent neighborhoods.”
It is annoying that staff invited St. Olaf to the table to lobby for their plans, present new information, and revise parking stall numbers two times rather than (at least) fully presenting the Planning Commission recommendation and its policy and research justification.
It is disturbing that the Council discussion has focused on defining terms and counting spaces, rather than whether this project and the Planning Commission recommendation is in line with City policies (in which we have invested thousands of dollars, countless staff hours, and the expertise and labor of hundreds of community members) and addresses the impact to the community which is, after all, the purpose for the CUP. There is no number of spaces which is “enough” without balancing multiple interests.
All the focus on the number of spaces has resulted in stirring up a lot of dust so the Council cannot see their way through to a forward-looking, policy-based decision.
Dust storms limit visibility
There is already enough parking
For campus development, parking is evaluated campus-wide, not on a per-building basis. The parking study St Olaf submitted states clearly that “the number of permitted parking stalls (excluding loading parking stalls) exceeds the required parking” stated in the Land Development Code. While no maximum is stated, the approval criteria does stipulate “an excessive number of parking spaces are not proposed” for project.
St. Olaf’s report goes on to describe how the college also has made efforts to “decrease students’ reliance on personal vehicles, reducing the need for long-term on-campus student parking capacity.” This suggests fewer spaces may be needed in the future, rather than more or the same amount (parking needs are also usually overestimated).
The recommendation which I believed was to remove the new paved parking lots (and could have been quickly clarified by the Planning Commission members at their last meeting) has been translated into a recommendation to remove “new” but not “replacement” parking spaces. This has triggered a new counting game asking which spaces are “new” and which are “replacement” and other number games which invite the Council to get deep into details, rather than helping them thoughtfully consider the long-term impacts to the community.
So, there is enough parking. It may not be what St. Olaf planned, it may not always be as convenient to each person as they want it to be, and, as always, removing parking spaces makes otherwise rational people batshit crazy. But there is enough.
My vote at to recommend approval with the condition that new parking be removed was meant to condition approval on removing the two large new slabs of pavement.
The proposed parking violates the LDC, Comprehensive Plan and other policies
Regardless of the number of spaces, the concentration of parking at the neighborhood edge of the campus is difficult to reconcile with the requirements for compatibility with the existing historic neighborhood, strategic goal to improve transit, stated goals to reduce carbon emissions, plans to improve car sharing (and bike and scooter sharing in the Climate Action Plan), improve bike and walk connections, enhance the small town character, and mitigate climate impact.
The development patterns of land can dictate transportation and building density, creating barriers and opportunities for where people live and how they travel. More compact land use with adequate options for non-motorized travel or transit can help reduce emissions from transportation. Conversely, low-density land use patterns that are designed for the movement of vehicles will create an auto-centric community that results in higher emissions.
The residential part of Ole Avenue is a fine example of what the City has said it wants – compact development, creating lovely streetscapes, and enhancing the interface with the St. Olaf campus which is one of the jewels of Northfield. The kind of land development pattern which can reduce emissions and mitigate stormwater issues.
The large parking lots are an example of what the City has said it does not want: The suburban parking layout is hidden from campus, but will strongly impact the surrounding neighborhood in ways which the City has said repeatedly it does not want because of their climate, human, and visual impacts. It is the kind of pattern designed for movement of vehicles.
Mixed messages: Focus on the renewable energy or easy car culture? Image: St. Olaf College
Important policy and practical questions the Council could ask
There are many questions I wish Council had asked and/or staff had considered rather than counting parking spaces as if there was a right number.
How should we balance convenience against community impact? Much has been made of ensuring students have easy access to their cars for their internships, student teaching, and jobs. Yet that convenience for a few will be purchased by encouraging more traffic in the neighborhood, more climate impact, more lighting, and less green space; is this acceptable? This balancing act applies for every street project Northfield builds where parking is proposed to be removed.
How are taxpayers’ interests being protected in the planning of this development? So far, the discussion has continued to center around the perceived need for convenient parking for students. But the CUP is intended to assess the impact to the community. The spillover effects of increased vehicle use (and lighting and stormwater) in the St. Olaf Avenue/Lincoln Street area will be felt by Northfield taxpayers who pay for the streets, parks, climate action programs, and transit. For development away from this campus/community interface (along Highway 19 or by Skoglund or near North Avenue), taxpayer interests are very small. How are you assessing the community impact — especially to taxpayers — as required by the CUP criteria rather than the student impact?
Will the parking help us carry out our policy goals? For only one example, the Strategic Plan calls for improving transit. Accomplishing this requires not just putting buses on the road, but making transit efficient. If driving is prioritized, will transit be impacted? I believe the Council’s job is to stay on a policy level, not a detail level; it is staff’s job to help them do this. Every project should be viewed through the lenses of Northfield policies focused by the Strategic Plan; how does this one stack up?
Is parking on neighborhood streets a problem? Staff and St. Olaf have both threatened “but they’ll park in the neighborhood” if the parking is eliminated. Certainly, I know homeowners are rabidly protective of their curb space and will defend it against bike lanes, curb extensions, and other people parking there. But if a variety of measures are taken to help students get around without their own vehicle (now and into the future) as St. Olaf has already indicated they intend to do, will parking in the neighborhood be significant, will it be more than a temporary issue, and are there other ways to control parking near campus (neighborhood parking permits, for example, which ensure that parking is not free except for residents)?
What other alternatives besides big parking lots and no parking lots exist? It would have been possible for staff to make a principled recommendation which does include more parking, but still took the neighborhood, traffic, and climate impact seriously by requiring parking to be distributed in smaller lots around campus with only limited parking next to the dorms, placing parking with with easy access only to the Highway 19 vehicle-oriented campus entrance, and prioritizing Lincoln, Second Street, and St. Olaf Avenue as local, walkable, bikeable connections. Can you challenge staff to bring you better answers?
Can you approve the CUP without the parking lots and see if the sky actually falls? Trying to change our planning and building behavior is really hard and Northfield’s past development has worked to make driving and parking very easy. Our newer policies point us in the right direction, but still require political will to take the first step at the project level. Could you approve the CUP with additional conditions which would prevent building the parking now, but leave it possible to construct more later if it is actually needed when other mobility and access strategies are implemented, too?
The other large parking lots on the Olaf campus are well-insulated from the neighborhood and this map shows no other residence hall has a large amount of parking.
Bottom line
This project could be a model for green development and a golden opportunity for city/college collaboration. The City priorities for better transit, climate action, and more compact land use should spur the Council to see possibilities and ask “How can we help students get around Northfield?” and the College to look at its wind turbine and sustainability policies and say “We’ve said we do care about the climate, so let’s think with the city about future-looking solutions.”
“Enough” parking is a political question, not a counting problem or pure policy question. The Planning Commission looked at the numbers and made a recommendation which, I believe, reflects the policies of the City and best practices. There certainly is “enough” if Northfield and St. Olaf follow through on their climate action planning, shared mobility, better transit, and commitment to working with the neighborhood on maintaining a wonderful interface between campus and town. Your job is to weigh the political concerns and decide how much is enough.
Northfield City Council elections might seem less than important when the world is on fire both literally (wildfires, protests) and figuratively (covid-19, presidential election, Black Lives Matter, Supreme Court, climate destruction, recession, unemployment…).
Most people think of city government as the lowest level of government and presumably less important. Local races may not generate the light and heat of other races, but city government gets shit done.
Bruno knows local government matters for dogs, too
City government gets shit done.
You can’t flush your toilet, take a shower, bike around town, borrow a library book, play in the park, get trash picked up, have a beer, or get a building permit in Northfield without city government. And, relevant to current events, city government plans for emergencies, can adopt regulations and policies which reduce systemic racism, and takes action to combat climate change. How much the city can do – and how we pay for it – depends on your vote.
Vote all the way down the ballot
Council races are “down ballot” races which are sometimes “flip the ballot over and read the back” races along with county commissioners, school board members, judges, and soil and water district commissioners. It’s sometimes harder to learn about these candidates to cast an informed vote, but local races are where candidates can win with some hard work, but without a lot of money or a big organization so new voices can be heard. Voters need to know that many people don’t vote all the way down their ballot, so a few votes can make all the difference (as I discovered). Down ballot races are where change starts.
What’s down your ballot
Every two years, Northfield elects half the Council. Presidential years like 2020 see the Mayor, one at-large seat, and the Ward 2 & 3 seats up for election (2022 will be the other at large seat, plus wards 1 & 4).
Which ward do you live in ?
Down your ballot you’ll find (depending on where you live in Northfield) these races (with links to on-line information where I can find it)
What’s on my ballot: The Minnesota Secretary of State website will show you a sample ballot for your voting ward and precinct when you enter your address.
Register to vote online or by downloading/printing forms (including information about special situations like being a college student, living abroad, experiencing homelessness and more). You can check your registration online, too, and find out about registering on election day.
Last week, the Strib ran an article about Northfield’s planned roundabout with tunnels for people biking and walking:
A Northfield roundabout planned for the intersection of Hwy. 246 and Jefferson Parkway will be only the second in the state with tunnels. https://t.co/jqBBu6oowi
Aside from the arrogance of this judgment (requiring omniscience to evaluate), there’s really more to be said about why this project, while unfortunate and imperfect, is justifiable.
Strib is wrong!
The Strib corrected their print story to show the the approved design below, rather than the rejected design which brought all the pedestrian tunnels to the center at a sort of below-grade plaza. The adopted version is simpler and allows more direct travel by people riding, rolling and walking:
Approved alternative for TH 246/Jefferson Parkway (image: City of Northfield)
Twitter is right!
I agree with these guys. The proposed roundabout plus tunnels is a huge amount of infrastructure with a very high price tag for an intersection with only 4,000 AADT. MnDOT and the City chose the roundabout design early and cut off opportunities to rethink the intersection for people walking, rolling, and riding and for cost savings in the short and long term.
I especially agree with Mr Speck that while roundabouts are the safest and most pedestrian friendly of the car-centric designs, they are still completely auto-centric infrastructure so the opportunity to really change the design paradigm was lost. So, yeah, the Northfield roundabout is a mega-project which violates the walkability rules and urbanism best practices.
Here’s RULE 69: USE ROUNDABOUTS WITH DISCRETION, in my new book, Walkable City Rules. I’m tweeting the whole book out May – August, one rule a day. Enjoy! Or go to: https://t.co/LVNgGNusqopic.twitter.com/R0dDgJSdfQ
An earlier exchange with many of the same complaints was kicked off by the only other person in the conversation who knows the Northfield landscape and, as a result, can also see the upside:
Northfield is just beginning to walk back the decades of suburban development which reached its apotheosis with the Northfield Middle School. This intersection is smack dab in the middle of this unconnected, residential area with three of Northfield’s five schools, a community center (including a senior center), and a future state trail which will be a major east-west bike/walk connection. And the north-south road is a state highway, just to add some jurisdictional complexity and design constraints.
Jefferson Parkway/TH 246 intersection
No other routes to school
Because there are NO other contiguous streets which connect the Middle School and there are two more schools plus the coming into town get-to-work traffic, congestion at this intersection is highly concentrated into “rush minutes” keyed to the school day. School start and end vehicle traffic jam times are the very same times kids might be walking and biking to school (All detailed here).
MnDOT AADT map (edited): The circle marks the roundabout location and shows what doesn’t connect
Perceived safety
What traffic looks like now as it heads to the 4-way stop with turn lanes during the school rush. There are multi-use paths and sidewalks leading to this intersection, but crossing the multi-lane all way stop in traffic like this is daunting and dangerous – both actually dangerous (with one person killed crossing on foot and multiple crashes) and certainly subjectively dangerous.
Who wants to cross this on a bike? (Photo 246 Solutions)
Parents are rightly afraid to let their kids bike or walk through this area now and are also concerned that kids crossing this kind of traffic at a roundabout doesn’t feel safe. Slowing cars and crossing at grade is the urbanist recommendation, but that still doesn’t address the sense that safety is achieved only by making sure people walking and biking are physically separated from heavy traffic. A small bonus – the intersection is already somewhat elevated, so underpass grades will be quite flat.
Older adults and people with mobility or vision challenges are also uncomfortable with crossing traffic lanes and needing to perch on “refuge medians” (surely the word “refuge” suggests being stranded) especially if crosswalks are before vehicles enter the roundabout and traffic is slowing down from 45 or 50 mph and looking left for other vehicles rather than for unprotected people.
The current 4-way stop doesn’t work well for any mode of travel, but when choosing another intersection control the City was limited by MnDOT requirements for its highway. The intersection does not meet MnDOT warrants for a traffic signal (traffic projections forecast warrants would be met by 2040) for one thing, and MnDOT’s emphasis on traffic flow and Level of Service prioritized easy driving…so, a roundabout was the choice. There is discussion of turning back this route to the county and/or city, but that possible future development will come too late for this project.
The highway has a posted speed limit of 45 mph in front of the middle school as vehicles slow down from the 55 (or maybe 60 as speed limits were raised recently) out of town section:
Speed limits on TH 246
Building schools on state highways is a bad idea, but Northfield did it anyway three times. So, the school district buses kids across the street to the Middle School because it is a hazardous crossing and the traffic accelerates out of town right about at the Middle School. Slowing traffic should happen well south of the roundabout and maybe, if this becomes a county of city route, there will be more opportunity to do that. But, again, too late for this project.
Back to the roundabout
So, given all the other factors, what should Northfield do right now to improve safety (actual and perceived), fix school traffic jams and encourage small people and older people and recreational trail users to walk and bike through this intersection?
Note the Catch-22: If Northfield could increase the number of students getting to school under their own power that would reduce rush minute congestion created by adults chauffeuring kids to school…and if it reduced demand during peak times then the over-engineered roundabout would not be needed. But how could Northfield increase walking and biking through an intersection where people die?
My position is the roundabout can relieve the traffic jams (and improve air quality by eliminating those idling cars and buses), reduce the number of conflict points for car crashes (of which there are many), and adding tunnels makes the walking and biking not only statistically safe, but safe feeling. Making biking and walking feel safe opens the door to schools encouraging kids to walk and bike (and parents will allow it), gives the Mill Towns Trail an enhanced chance of success by allowing low stress, non-stop travel (just like cars want!).
Mill Towns Trail proposed alignment
Will it work?
Mr Speck has decreed it has never worked and will never work, but I’m hopeful that IF the City ensures that there are safe bike and walk routes to the roundabout from all directions (for thinking beyond the project area is always a challenge), then Northfield opens the door to biking and walking as real transportation so that by the time this needs to be reconstructed, the landscape will be different and the next solution will be climate focused instead.
But. I also have deep reservations about this approach. Adding bike and walk facilities, even really good ones, to a system designed for and prioritizing vehicle travel – as this project most certainly does only reinforces the unsustainable design mentality which supports the “drive everywhere” status quo. At this moment in Northfield, it is what is politically possible, but it dodges the critical issue of reducing driving to save the planet and our health.
I have two desired outcomes for this project beyond getting people riding, rolling and walking safely to all the important destinations near this intersection. First, making this project an object lesson in Northfield’s evolving climate action planning highlighting what not to do in the future. Second, the City and school district will understand this project is a bandaid to fix a series of land use and transportation mistakes which both jurisdictions will want to endeavor not to repeat. Maybe the very high price tag will focus their attention more sharply.
A quick look at a map of the City shows the wonderful, walkable core, but then how the City sprawled and spread. Northfield did a very thorough job of not merely breaking, but flouting Mr Speck’s walkability rules and we’re just starting to put the town back together. The particular challenges at this critical intersection mean I’m defending the choice to separate the bike and walk trails from the vehicle traffic to help people feel safer while we work on all the other pieces.
After so completely cutting off connectivity in the past, Northfield’s decision to try a big fix at this intersection is defensible, but disappointing.
Look! Northfield has updated its sidewalk stencils for directing bicycle traffic off the sidewalks:
On view now at 7th & Division Street!
A few years ago, I complained about the City of Northfield’s misleadingly negative image on downtown sidewalks:
Really, let’s have more bikes downtown (and skateboards – also prohibited on the sidewalks!). Just walk them on the sidewalk where there’s very limited space. So THANK YOU Northfield (especially Dave Bennett) for changing the stencil and the message with the latest downtown street project.
More ideas for helping bikes fit in downtown
Provide parking (off the crowded sidewalk in high traffic locations)
But where will they park (their bikes)? Right here!
And some great destinations (again, keeping the sidewalk clearer for walking and access)
A parklet in a parking space (Image: Dero – the bike rack people)
And some signage to tell drivers and riders that they are welcome on the street rather than the sidewalk:
The new Greenvale Park Elementary School will improve the inside-the-building issues from no doors to more security to better tech and has been planned with detailed input from teachers and parents.
Far less attention was paid to outside the school, however, and the golden opportunity created by building a new school to explicitly consider the larger picture of how this school will be more equitable, address climate change, increase transportation options, and connect its neighborhood. Breaking ground this week, the district will start to pave over its once-in-a-generation chance.
Northfield does not build new schools often.
Wold Architects presented this design to Northfield school board. The large parking lot, two new driveways, and vehicle drop off lanes visually, spatially and psychologically prioritize easy driving and vehicle storage over safe, people (child!) centered access. This choice is backward looking and kills the golden opportunity goose dead.
How we got here
Here’s the city planning context: during the 1970s and 1980s multiple blocks south of the school were vacated leaving Lincoln Parkway in front of the school as the only continuous east-west street nearby and thus a critical connection for the neighborhood which includes a large retirement community, links to Saint Olaf College, and the only street connecting Viking Terrace on the east and the Dakota County neighborhoods on the west to the larger community. The street is wide and vehicles travel fast.
Photo: City of Northfield (Red lines are trails; yellow lines are sidewalks)
But as a neighborhood school, walking distances aren’t long. Siting the school and planning the vehicle circulation to allow Lincoln Parkway to connect the retirement community (west), Viking Terrace (east), more homes on all sides, AND the school for walking and biking for all ages, incomes, and abilities could have been a core part of the planning. But it wasn’t.
But the importance of walking and biking is not just my opinion. The City of Northfield has been working one policy update at a time to build a more walkable city. Northfield city policy also points to improving biking and walking around Greenvale in particular; the draft update of the city’s trail, bike, and pedestrian plan identifies safer and more accessible bicycling and walking facilities around K-12 schools as a priority and Lincoln Parkway as a gap in the bicycling network.
But not if you go to Greenvale Park (Photo: Bike Law)
Building walkable schools pays big dividends
Walking (which is shorthand for walking, biking, skateboarding, rolling, scootering…and any other form of active transportation) and building walkable places is good for Northfield in ways which both directly and indirectly benefit schools:
Educational value: Kids who walk arrive at school better able to focus, and have higher test scores. Parents walking with kids can give children, not driving, their full attention, too. Walking and biking alone or with other kids builds independence and confidence.
Economic value: Northfield’s recent presentation by Urban3, discussions with consultants about developing the area around the hospital and an Urban Land Institute workshop last fall all emphasized the high demand and higher property values for walkable neighborhoods, and the need for Northfield to ensure new development was connected to schools, downtown, shopping and jobs not only by streets, but by sidewalks and bike trails. And walking can help family reduce the amount they have to pay for transportation from less gas to being able to have one fewer vehicles.
Public health benefits: Building for and promoting walking is a great, low cost way to start to reverse the public health trends showing we’re getting fatter and sicker. Designing for walkability with lower traffic speeds, fewer conflict points like driveway entrances, and better sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike facilities makes places safer for people walking, but also people driving. Better mental health, lower stress, and more benefits are associated with active transportation.
The high costs of driving
No matter how many benefits I can list for walking, driving is almost always more convenient and, for many trips in Northfield, unavoidable. Northfield, like almost everywhere else, has built streets and neighborhoods to make driving easy. Because driving is so normal and so needed, I’m not surprised the school district followed the path of least resistance and accommodated the demand for easy car access.
Yet, I am so sorry that the district didn’t do more because it was such a great chance to help begin to shift the status quo for all the benefits above, but also to help alleviate some of the costs below. Most people don’t consider all the costs or know how our laws and policies subsidize driving or think about doing anything else. But the school district could have helped change the status quo by considering:
Driving costs money: Cars are expensive (typical estimates are about $8,000 per year). The groups most likely to bike and walk already are low income people and people of color; these are the families Greenvale Park serves. Reducing the need to drive and increasing the safety for people walking and biking will begin to advance greater equity in transportation in Northfield.
Driving costs lives. People driving kill an increasing number of people walking and biking (again, disproportionately lower income and people of color). Reducing school car traffic generally and designing to reduce speed and distraction improves safety. The City of Northfield has begun building traffic calming features into street projects. Partnering with the City for changes to Lincoln Parkway to slow traffic, improve crossings, add bike facilities and fill sidewalk gaps would have been a good way to think together (and share costs) with the City to improve safety and quality of life.
Driving is expensive for taxpayers: Building for driving means it is often unsafe and unpleasant to walk, so the school district must pay more to bus more students short distances (such as busing kids across the street from the Middle School), more parking means paying more for maintenance and plowing. Building wide roads and expanding the city in ways which require more driving requires more miles of streets, more pavement, more maintenance and higher taxes (road specific fees and taxes do not cover the costs; general fund dollars are required).
Building for driving incentivizes more driving. Widening roads and an abundant supply of free parking increases the amount of driving rather than alleviating congestion. Changing Greenvale’s primary orientation to easy biking and walking rather than easier driving could have been a big step toward slowing down the vicious circle.
Greenvale’s parking lot matters because placing it between the school and the street helps continue the pattern of designing people out of our places and making active transportation unsafe, unpleasant, and unusual. And new schools don’t get built very often.
Building for walkability means more than “there is a sidewalk.” Walkable places site buildings where they are easiest to approach on foot (usually close to and facing the street) with an obvious and inviting front entrance. Parking is better placed behind (or under) the building and away from the street. Working with the City of Northfield for better crosswalks, traffic calming, and other infrastructure improvements would connect the school to the other side of the street.
The author ready to walk to kindergarten ca. 1966
Better site design would not have changed the world in one construction project, but de-emphasizing driving (even making it somewhat less convenient!) would have made encouraging walking easier (Hey school district – how about a Safe Routes to School program?), made walking in the neighborhood more pleasant (Age Friendly Northfield and helping older adults stay active!), and helped connect this part of Northfield to the rest of the city (equity!). It would also have shown that the school district truly cares about its students, their health, and the future of the environment they will live in. This project is an opportunity squandered.
But wait, there’s more
I served on the District’s core planning group for Greenvale to raise these issues and I was surprised that the teachers, administrators, and parents in the group provided detailed and thoughtful input about the design of the building. Energy efficiency, locker placement, accommodating the Community School, ensuring efficient placement of social workers and nurses, and planning the traffic pattern inside were all discussed at length. But these dedicated teachers and community members (who said they cared about climate change, science, and student health inside the building) were silent when I brought up how the placement of the building could support their work and values.
After this group concluded its work, Superintendent Matt Hillman bought me a nice brush-off lunch and suggested my concerns were merely a difference of opinion. I am concerned that our school officials – the ones who are trying to educate our children to be thoughtful, critical, knowledgeable participants in our democracy are so quick to fall victim to the fallacy of false equivalence. And, as a taxpayer, I am concerned that short term expedience has prevented thoughtful, critical consideration of the long-term costs of their choices.
Walking to school should be safe, easy, and obvious. Even for 5 year olds.
The Northfield City Council is poised to approve a design for a roundabout plus bike and walk facilities at Jefferson Parkway and Division Street/TH246.
This is a once-in-a-generation large project to begin to reconnect Northfield could have been avoided or been approached incrementally if the City and School District had made more future-thinking, system-level decisions. Perhaps revisiting the history could/should help the City avoid having to spend taxpayers money to fix problems it largely created for itself.
More generally, how should the Council make its decision? Project cost is often the only objectively comparable metric among alternatives, but City staff could make clearer recommendations about why one alternative is preferable based on Northfield policy and data-supported best practices rather than presenting information as if all options are equivalent. Public input is important for preference, but polling and “dot-mocracy” should not determine the outcome of a complex project.
So, let me put a large number of words in the mouths of City staff to imagine what I wish they had said as they write their staff report for the City Council:
City Council Meeting Date: September 3, 2019
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City staff
Subject: Consider Motion authorizing Jefferson Parkway & Trunk Highway (TH) 246 Roundabout Final Design.
Action Requested: Staff Recommends a motion authorizing Jefferson Parkway & TH 246 Roundabout Final Design with Roundabout Design Alternative 2 that will include a pedestrian crossing with bumpout Option 2 design for the high school crossing.
Summary Report:
246/Jefferson Parkway Intersection Control Evaluation
The City initiated the Intersection Control Evaluation study at the intersection of Trunk Highway (TH) 246 and Jefferson Parkway in 2016. The goal and objectives of the intersection study were as follows:
Identify improvements that alleviate peak hour congestion,
Over approximately the last 30-40 years, City land use and transportation decisions have created the problems we are now trying to solve. No single decision caused the significant vehicle congestion during school arrival and dismissal times or the dangerous conditions for people driving, walking, and riding. However, the sum of the approval of residential subdivisions which did not have continuous and connected streets, annexation of land and approval of school site plans without sufficient consideration of how people, especially kids, would reach them has resulted in the problem we now have the opportunity to begin to solve.
Presenting this historical survey before turning to the Intersection Control Evaluation is intended to assist the Council in decision making for this project and in the future by highlighting the consequences of disconnected decision-making.
Jefferson Parkway/TH 246 intersection
History of decisions
South of Woodley Street, the grid street pattern of the older Northfield neighborhoods was abandoned with longer blocks, fewer connecting streets, and many cul de sacs or dead end streets.
The residential subdivisions on either side of TH246, both north and south of Jefferson Parkway were approved without requiring streets to connect outside the subdivision except to major collector streets. Homeowners appreciated the low traffic streets, but the long-term consequences are few opportunities to improve connectivity.
The 2008 Comprehensive Transportation Plan called out this “lack of interconnected neighborhoods” resulting in an “overreliance” on TH246 and Jefferson Parkway.
From the 2008 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The residential subdivision to the west of TH246 was designed with multiple culs de sacs radiating off a single loop (Roosevelt Drive) with no opportunities to connect to surrounding destinations. The only exit is from Roosevelt Drive onto Jefferson Parkway. And, more recent research shows that the cul de sac – collector pattern is less safe than a more grid-like pattern which slows and distributes traffic. Crash data in the 2008 Comprehensive Transportation Plan seems to support this conclusion:
2008 Comprehensive Transportation Plan map showing crashes along Jefferson parkway (red stars for fatal collisions)
The Northfield Public School District’s choices (permitted by the City) are also significant. Locating Bridgewater Elementary School and Northfield Middle School directly south of the Northfield High School resulted in the highly concentrated congestion coming from school-related vehicle trips. Bridgewater is a neighborhood school, but all public school students must travel to the very southmost location of the only high school and middle school in the City. Significant bus traffic as well as students driving and middle school parents chauffeuring their children must pass through the TH246 and Jefferson Parkway intersection every day and within a compressed time period because the City prevented alternative routes through its subdivision decision-making.
The October 2001 Traffic Impact Report for the middle school anticipated increased traffic on Jefferson Parkway from the school and continued residential development. Analyzing this corridor, consultant Yaggy Colby Associates recommended installing the median which now exists saying “will provide more direction for drivers, which will in turn make it a safer corridor” and provide “refuge for pedestrians” crossing the wide street. This choice has proved to make Jefferson more difficult for school buses and large vehicles to access schools as well as significantly more dangerous for people on bikes.
In summary, this project highlights how short-sighted decisions over time have made mobility and access more difficult in this part of the City. Northfield should work to change its development approval process to require street connectivity with particular emphasis on helping people walking and biking and people with disabilities move along and across streets. Major community facilities such as schools should be planned with the developer as to siting and access for all to prevent the need for retrofitting in the future.
250′ to walk, 1.5 miles to drive
Northfield Planning documents
At least since Northfield Middle School opened in 2004, Northfield’s planning documents and adopted policies have clearly supported the position that Northfield will be a place where people can walk, roll, and ride bikes safely and easily, streets will connect, and where the natural environment is protected as we work to mitigate climate change. These plans include:
These policy documents guide staff’s recommendation for the design for the TH246 and Jefferson Parkway intersection and are supplemented by other City bike and walk events such as the 2014 Bikeable Community Workshop as well as current best practices in bike and pedestrian design.
Bikeable community workshop
Current Project
As stated above, staff identified these goals for this project
Identify improvements that alleviate peak hour congestion,
All alternatives in the Feasibility Study recommend constructing a single lane roundabout. This design is recommended for improving vehicle congestion more than other intersection controls such as stop signs or signalized intersections.
Roundabouts smooth out traffic flow by eliminating the need to stop. A single-lane roundabout is also safer for cars based on data showing a 78% reduction in severe crashes and 48% reduction in overall crashes. Roundabouts slow traffic which reduces crash severity and the reduction in conflict points make vehicle crashes less likely.
From SEH traffic study: Roundabouts reduce speed and number of places to hit other things
Staff recommends Council consider collaborating with the Northfield School District after this project is completed to update the Safe Routes to School Plan and encourage schools to adopt Safe Routes to Schools programs to increase walking and biking to further reduce school-generated congestion as well as support City goals for transportation and climate action.
Bicycle and pedestrian safety
All alternatives studied include the single lane roundabout, but the other goals for this project are not addressed equally by all alternatives. Staff strongly recommends selecting Alternative 2 for the following reasons; another choice should require findings of fact to justify a less safe alternative for people walking and biking.
Alternative 2: the recommended option
The peak hour traffic volume and the “no stop” characteristic of roundabouts make the roundabout design challenging to navigate for people walking and riding, especially school children likely to be using the intersection during peak times. Further, roundabouts have been shown to be especially difficult for people with low vision or blindness.
Staff emphasize that for people walking and riding, safety requires more than statistical safety or “no dead people” but includes whether people feel safe as they move through this intersection. The Complete Streets statement to make streets safe for people of “all ages and abilities” requires subjective as well as objective safety to ensure people walking and biking must feel protected from traffic by a barrier or sufficient distance, be able to navigate turns and crossings easily, on a route is free from debris and hazards as well as harassment or crime.
Examples of underpasses from consultant report
Staff opinion is that only grade separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities will meet this standard. The Feasibility Study identified underpasses rather than overpasses as more cost effective; Alternatives 2 & 3 both provide grade separated facilities.
Alternative 3 is not recommended. This alternative does provide grade separated facilities, however, the significant space below grade presents maintenance issues, longer trips when traveling in a single one direction, and social safety issues of blind corners and the need for additional lighting and/or supervision. The Mill Towns State Trail heightens the need to avoid diverting all routes to the center which could require additional wayfinding aids to mark the route for the anticipated increase in bicycle traffic through this intersection.
Staff recommendation for TH246 and Jefferson Parkway
Staff recommends Alternative 2. This option is preferred to Alternative 3 as it is the best option for meeting the standard of a safe route for people of all ages and abilities and furthers Northfield’s policy goals through grade separated facilities and short, direct passage beneath the roadway which will increase perceived safety; this is the only alternative recommended to safely and conveniently reconnect this section of Northfield.
Staff recommendation for the Northfield High School crossing
Staff recommends Option 2 for the High School crossing. Both Options 1 and 2 preserve bicycle access through the curb extensions, but Option 2 provides (1) a shorter crossing distance shown to be safer by allowing more rapid crossing and less vehicle delay, and (2) physical protection for people waiting to cross and riders bicycling through the crossing.
Northfield High School crossing options
Future needs
This project will be a major step toward reconnecting major community destinations, enabling safe walking and bicycling to school, and improving safety for all users of the intersection. However, additional steps will be needed in the future to complete the network including:
change the High School entrance to a right in-right out design to prevent difficulties turning left onto Division Street in heavy traffic in close proximity to this crossing and to simplify the number of turning movements for people biking and walking making this area more predictable and increasing safety.
complete bike and pedestrian planning along Division Street/TH246 from downtown to the City Limits and on Jefferson Parkway from TH3 to Spring Creek Road including connecting routes.
completing policy update recommendations from Toole Design in the bike and pedestrian plan updates.
evaluate planning policy including annexation, community facility siting, linking transportation to land use decisions, and incorporating metrics which measure walkability rather than vehicle movement.
Conclusion in my own voice
City staff are supposed to be the professional experts. As such, they must frame alternatives for the Council and the public using their professional expertise to distinguish options based on how each option will fulfill policy goals and meet safety or performance criteria. For this critically important project, knowing why an option is recommended needs to be articulated. For a project which is needed to fix prior decision-making, it is also important to learn how not to make similar expensive mistakes (in dollars and human life) again.
The voters said “no” to building a new Arena back in November 2018, but the old Arena is still City property, still operated by the City, still barely functional, and whether to fix it still unresolved. But now it is budget season for the City and some choices will need to be made.
The Ice Arena is still a problem
Unfortunately, budget discussions are not as well-publicized as a referendum (indeed, the Council hides beyond the reach of video at the Police Station for budget talks), so in this intermission between the referendum first period and the budget decision second period on the Ice Arena, let’s review what’s happened and consider some questions the Council should answer before spending more money.
In November 2018, about 55% of Northfield voters voted against the ballot question to 45% in favor. Interestingly, the only two precincts with a majority of voters supporting the question were the two college precincts, Ward 1-Precinct 1 (Carleton) and Ward 4-Precinct 2 (Olaf). If you take out the college precincts, the majority opposed was about 60% (click here for the MN Secretary of State results).
While we wait for the next puck to drop at City Hall, conversations I had with people not supporting the referendum last year revealed three general complaints:
The “Civic Center” was really just a hockey facility [and the city was not being transparent and/or honest],
The picture was too rosy, [and the city was not being transparent and/or honest] and,
Wow, that’s a lot of money which could be better spent on other things [and this included a variety of concerns about spending, taxes, and priorities].
Process
In the budget timeline where a preliminary levy must be adopted by September, there is little time for Northfield to correct the process problems for next year, but the City needs to follow a much fairer and more transparent procedure to reach its next long-term decision. Obviously, the City needs help:
This is an understatement
Be deliberate: Resist the urge to act quickly while you take the time to consider a broader range of options for ice in the community and who pays for it. Especially, take the time to (1) develop some financial policy about how the City can budget for the longterm maintenance and replacement of its facilities (any facility, not just the Arena!) before building a new one, and (2) consider how to equitably allocate resources to parks and recreation, and among recreational choices within that allocation.
Eliminate conflicts of interest: The Northfield Ice Arena Advisory Board was a hand-picked group of ice stakeholders from hotel owners (who benefit from the promised increased tourist dollars), to hockey and figure skating leaders (who benefit from the ice), to construction company owners (who could benefit from building the facility), the school district (which benefits by having the city do the heavy financial lifting for its teams).
Seek broader representation from the community including people for whom tax increases pose a real burden not just those who can afford to pay, people who skate and people who don’t, people who play other sports and those who play none, supporters and opponents, the School District, etc. “What Northfield wants (and should pay for)” needs to be assessed by a better cross-section of the community.
Clearly state the costs and risks as well as the projected benefits for any Arena project (and any other project): Large capital projects cost a lot to build, but each project creates the on-going obligation to repair and replace the new facility, road, bridge, etc. Governments generally, not just Northfield, have not been very good about understanding and budgeting for this reality. So the $21M price tag for the the proposed Civic Center was only the projected cost of construction, but did not include the other costs which taxpayers will have to pay over the life of the facility including maintenance and repair, possible operating deficits, change in rates of participation, etc. Smaller plans to repair or remodel should consider the same long-term commitment.
Don’t consider the Ice Arena by itself, but plan for it as part of Northfield’s Parks and Recreation System. The key word here is “system.” Northfield has more than 30 Parks, 2 recreation facilities (outdoor swimming pool and ice arena), and miles of trails.
“How about a referendum just for parks?” came up more than once as voters thought about the 30% of the sales tax revenue which could have been allocated for recreation and parks. Most people said things like parks are important to them and providing recreational opportunities for Northfield was desirable, but the huge amount of money for ice was too much for one activity or just too much.
The City must discuss how to support its park and recreation system in the long term before committing to support a facility for a small group of very expensive sports. Ten years ago, when Gov. Pawlenty unallotted local government aid to Northfield, the Council voted to take money from parks to offset this sudden disappearance of revenue and long term park funding has still not recovered. Now’s the time and a good transition to the policy problems.
Big picture policy questions
Aspiration: If I had to pick just one aspect of Northfield government to change, I’d say: The City needs to stop making decisions on a project by isolated project basis and start considering how it spends money in the context of the overall needs of the city, guided by it adopted policies, and armed with current and relevant data.
The Ice Arena is a stunning example of a single project put before the voters without context, without long-term planning, and without connections to the other priorities in the Strategic Plan, economic development priorities, the Capital Improvement Plan, or the Comprehensive Plan.
The next attempt to address the ice arena should improve the process and ask (at least) these policy questions before getting to a specific project (or no project at all).
Big question 1: Equity and access: Is Northfield’s parks, trails, and recreation system (taken as a whole) equitable and accessible to all Northfield residents?
Parks, for example, should be located in places which are within easy (walking) distance of all residents. A look at the map shows the northern part of the city is less well connected to trails, has parks which are hidden behind homes with little street frontage (creating the perception of private space), and large playing fields only at Greenvale Park Elementary School (likely to disappear when the new school is built).
City of Northfield Parks Map
For major facilities like the outdoor pool and ice arena, the question is less about location than whether the facility supports activities able to be enjoyed the broadest cross section of the community. Swimming is a basic safety skill (and one unequally distributed) as well as cool recreation, so providing access to a pool (which hosts swim lessons via community education) seems like it could tick the right boxes, but the City should consider what its system and facilities supports now and what it should do.
Big question 2: Public facilities for school and private sports: The largest users of the Ice Arena are other organizations: the Northfield School District, the Northfield Hockey Association, and the Northfield Skating School. What, if any, role should the City of Northfield play in building and maintaining public facilities for non-public activities? Compare Sechler Park or Spring Creek Park; these facilities are also heavily used by baseball and soccer associations, but the use is seasonal, costs are lower, the parks include trails and playgrounds, the soccer association pays for maintenance and no fee is charged to visit the parks. What policy can the City develop to rationally guide choices about public facilities for non-public uses including capital costs, operating expenses, and the amount of time the facility must be available for public use?
A better example of a public private partnership (Photo: City of Northfield)
Big question 3: Funding:What proportion of Northfield’s annual budget should be committed to parks, trails, and recreation and how will the City determine this level? Northfield’s Parks, Open Space, and Trails Plan includes dollar estimates for capital improvements for each of Northfield’s 30+ parks (trails and maintenance not included) totaling between $7-10 million in 2008 dollars (now about $8.2-11.7 million). How will Northfield plan and budget for the life cycle costs of its parks and facilities, not just their initial development? After Northfield considers how it will partner with private groups, how will those groups participate in the construction, operation, and risk of these facilities?
Game on
It’s probably clear I don’t think a City-supported ice arena is a wise use of taxpayer money using any model like the current one. Maybe there are ways to build and maintain indoor ice in Northfield which shield the City from risk, are financially and environmentally sustainable, and are as equitable as possible. But Northfield hasn’t even started to identify those ways yet. All the City has now is this list:
From the Strategic Plan update
How is the City going to choose from this list?
Tax dollars should support activities and facilities which (taken as a whole) serve all Northfielders with a special effort to ensure access for underserved groups and areas. So I am concerned about the amount of money to construct and/or maintain an ice arena which serves relatively few people overall, is largely scheduled for use by other organizations, and is purpose-built for a few expensive sports (Public skating takes place at lunchtime during the week and 1.5 hours on Sunday afternoon). And I’m even more concerned the City will decide and budget by the seat of their breezers.
“Jesus Christ, what a friggin’ nightmare” (Image: Star Tribune)
