From the Globe Gazette Editorial on Sunday, April 26, 2009, “No wonder City Councilman Scott Tornquist hesitated so long Tuesday before casting a vote in favor of Mason City spending federal stimulus money to erect an overpass at the Kentucky Avenue railroad crossing”.
I did NOT vote to spend any money on an overpass at Kentucky. I did cast the deciding vote to forward the potential project to Congressman Latham’s office for consideration, and to commence meaningful community dialogue on the validity of the concept. Background follows to put the discussion we had in proper context.
Towards the end of the council meeting on Tuesday, April 7th, Councilman Weaver asked a number of good questions regarding the status of federal stimulus funds available, and what our short list was for potential projects as funding sources became available. The response Weaver received was at best, weak. Weaver then put forward a couple of ideas, including an overpass at Kentucky.
I expressed reservation with an overpass at Kentucky, and went on to say that I’d never support such a project without significant input from the neighborhood and the community. Up until that moment in time we had never had any discussion (that I recall) regarding an overpass at Kentucky. I further suggested that with no workshops scheduled in April, we should take advantage of a slower month and schedule a workshop to discuss potential projects appropriate for federal stimulus funding. On Friday, April 10th, I emailed the city administrator a list of nine items that I felt would be appropriate for workshop discussions in the near future. This list included a review of the Comprehensive Plan for development of a strategy to bring the plan to life.
When I picked up my council packet on Friday, April 17th, I learned for the first time that we would be asked to support one of eight projects listed in the memo to council (Item 30 of the packet) for submission to Congressman Latham’s office. Applications were due Wednesday, April 22nd, the day after the regularly scheduled council meeting for the 21st. The cover memo identified $1.3MM in city funding available to support the chosen project in FY 2011 or 2012. At the council meeting we were informed the submitted project had to be a new initiative.
So, going into the meeting last Tuesday we were pretty much flying by the seat of our pants. Though I have not seen a tape of the meeting, I believe I expressed my position fairly clearly:
1). The federal stimulus money was a good deal if applied to a project the community needs; it is wasteful spending if we simply create an unneeded project to capture the federal funding
2). I am of the opinion funding should be spent on a project that will create opportunities for additional growth and development (residual private capital investment) in the community
3). An overpass at Kentucky would not, in my opinion create incremental opportunities for subsequent growth
4). I would not support an additional overpass without significant input from the people on Kentucky that would be directly impacted, as well as the community at large regarding the cost/benefit
5). I felt a better solution to the Kentucky crossing issues was to extend Illinois south, and 19th east, creating a new at grade crossing at S. Illinois, and opening up a new area for residential development. We could create a residential TIF district in this area, and use incremental proceeds to deal with remaining issues at Kentucky in the future. This would further benefit traffic patterns in the Stone Pillar neighborhood, and move some of the high school traffic from residential neighborhoods to arterial streets.
6). Realizing I have twice failed to move this concept forward, my personal preference was for the Roosevelt extension, as it was the one item on the list that created the greatest opportunity for residual investment following the project.
Moments later the Mayor asked for a motion. A motion was made and seconded to submit the Kentucky overpass as the chosen project. I was the final councilman polled: when it came time for me to vote, we had three votes for the motion, and two against. So, the motion hinged on my vote (a 3-3 tie is a failure of the motion). I took about 10 seconds to process my thoughts, and in that time reached the following conclusions:
a). If I voted no, the concept was for all intents dead, as we cannot accomplish such a project without federal funding.
b). Not knowing how the community felt about the project, a “yes” vote created an opportunity for community dialogue that could impact the ultimate decision. A “no” vote would also generate community discussion, but not in a manner that could impact decision making as the decision would have already been made (to kill the project).
c). A “yes” vote was reversible (there are still many opportunities to kill the project if that is the will of the community); a “no” vote was not reversible (the submission was due the next day).
d). I realized that if I voted “no”, we’d be there for another hour arguing over what project should or shouldn’t be submitted, and we still weren’t likely to have any more consensus. This had the potential to morph into a highly emotional and controversial meeting, and we have too many good things taking shape to let this become a negative diversion at this point in time.
e). Three votes supporting the motion had been recorded, signaling to me we had about as much support as I thought we could generate on any motion.
And so I voted “yes” in support of the motion, which I believe was the only intellectually responsible decision available to me based upon the information I had at the time. And this is where we have fallen short, as a council, and as a staff.
This council, like those that have come before us, has fallen into a trap of being reactive rather than proactive. If we were a responsible, visionary council, we would be spending time casting a five, ten, and twenty year vision for the community, and turning our Comprehensive Plan into an action list that can be traced through our five year CIP. Until we take that step, and actually start implementing a long term plan for the community, we will continue to drift as the wind blows. We do not, at this time, have a council composed of representatives that are willing to tackle this work. This task is long overdue; had we led in a timely manner, we would have been prepared for Item 30 on the last agenda with little need for discussion. Community pressure is needed to facilitate a change in attitude that will lead to creating a community poised to prosper.
Specific to the opportunity to submit a project to Congressman Latham’s office, staff really botched this one up. On April 22nd, the day following the meeting, I learned that our City Administrator received the request from Latham’s office on Thursday, April 9th. Why wasn’t a workshop scheduled for the week of 4/13 thru 4/17 so we could have discussed potential projects ahead of the council meeting on the 21st? The request I made for such a work session at the council meeting of the 7th was underscored by the opportunity that came from Latham’s office on the 9th. No discernable proactive steps were taken.
Then, on Thursday the 23rd I read in the Globe Gazette that city staff misunderstood the project guidelines communicated from Latham’s office. Wouldn’t you think if council was going to be pinned down as tight as we were we’d at least have an accurate understanding of the rules? I learned, by way of the newspaper (two days after the fact) that submitted projects didn’t have to be new initiatives. Do you think this information might have changed the council dialogue any? And isn’t it troubling that council members are receiving pertinent information from the newspaper? Is that the appropriate venue to post the council?
And so here we are, with one of my biggest concerns coming to pass. A project that may never come to fruition is circulating as a done deal, and misinformation is rampant. Last Thursday I suggested the Administrator schedule a community meeting to discuss the status of the proposed overpass at Kentucky, as well as the option and timing. We MUST hear from the people that would be most impacted, and from the community in general so we can evaluate the level of support for the project. I requested this meeting take place prior to the next council meeting. The sooner the better; the rumor mill is at full bore. (I’ve also requested a similar community meeting in May to discuss sidewalk locations associated with the Hwy 122 project scheduled to start next year).
There are many opportunities to kill the project, but at least we have it in the pipeline if it is indeed desired by the community. If the community doesn’t like the concept, we can withdraw our funding request. If we don’t make the federal cuts, the project will die for lack of funding. Even if we do get federal funding, I won’t support the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for any phase of the project (including preliminary engineering) if we have not had meaningful community dialogue.
As a council, and as a staff, we must continue looking for ways to enhance communication with the public. This latest “opportunity” feels a lot more like government doing “to the people” rather than “for the people”.
Scott Tornquist
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Thoughts on Vision Iowa
On Thursday, April 24, I contacted the City Administrator and requested that we get together on Friday the 25th to review the numbers for the Vision Iowa project, and so that I might share some of the concerns I need addressed on behalf of the taxpayers of Mason City. At my request, Robin Anderson of the Chamber participated in the meeting. What follows is information the three of us reviewed during this 45 minute meeting, and some of my current thoughts on this complex opportunity we have before us.
The following charts indicate the target completion dates for each of the seven components of the Vision Iowa project, and the project budgets and sources of funding (double click on image to enlarge):
Impact on Taxpayers
With approval of the Vision Iowa contract, council will be committing $12.3 million towards the $34 million dollar project. Of the $12.3 million, $7.65 million was approved by the voters for the Library referendum that was on the ballot last November. This leaves $4.65 million yet to be approved.
As indicated in the preceding chart, the $4.65 million is distributed across four of the seven Vision Iowa components as follows: Performing Arts Pavilion ($500,000), Recreational Trails ($750,000), Federal Avenue Streetscape ($1,600,000), and a Parking Structure ($1,800,000). Thought on each of these components is included below.
Our City Administrator has been able to work with staff and outside resources the past several weeks to shore up our comfort level with the accuracy of the estimates for the taxpayer funded portion of the projects. While that process continues, we are working to identify and quantify risk to each of these numbers so we understand not only where we are starting these projects out, but where we might end up if some of the unknowns materialize.
Though not directly part of the Vision Iowa scope and application, I have requested that we add a contingency amount to the $4.65 million that represents an insurance policy of sorts (for worst case scenario planning purposes only) against potential overruns to deal with unknowns. Further, we know the city will incorporate additional costs required to complete these projects efficiently. For example, the Federal Avenue Streetscape dollars deal strictly with work above ground. We know we need to replace the infrastructure below the street before we complete the Streetscape project. I’d like to add these costs to the $4.65 million (for planning purposes only), and similar required work that is in the short and long term plans (but will require expediting) so we can come up with an accurate financial projection of the real impact over the next five years.
Once we have this revised number, I have requested that staff generate a cash flow forecast that demonstrates our total spending pattern over the life of the project, including the incidental work the city will have to incorporate to facilitate the projects. Then, once the spending forecast is made, we need to communicate the impact to property taxes for the average taxpayer over the life of the project to support the Vision Iowa program. The City Administrator believes these financial projections can be completed prior to May 6, when the council votes on the contract for the first time.
Park Inn/National Bank
This week the council was copied on the Phase II Comprehensive Market Study Report prepared for the Wright on the Park Board by Hospitality Marketers International, Inc., dated December 2007. The report is exhaustive (72 pages) not including an addendum and executive summary. I have reviewed this report in detail, and am encouraged by the findings of an independent analysis. Though there are risks to the business plan for a future service provider (as is common in any business venture), the report indicates the Park Inn Hotel can fill a void in the market, and should be the rate leader in this market place. As supported by this independent report, I believe that reopening the property as a hotel is viable. As I policy maker, I want to make sure we insulate the taxpayers, to the best of our ability, from the inherent risk to this phase of VI (see “Contract” below).
One of the attractive features of Vision Iowa is that as a community we can complete the Park Inn AND the City National Bank restorations without direct investment of taxpayer dollars, a commitment made to the community a number of years ago. All of the support is indirect, and is comprised of initiatives we would undertake as a community regardless of the disposition of the Park Inn Hotel.
Mason City Public Library
Council opinion on this project is now irrelevant……the voters approved the bond referendum for the lions share of the project last November. Vision Iowa will contribute $1,000,000 to the project, leaving $591,840 to be raised from private sources.
Performing Arts Pavilion
The blog preceding this one deals exclusively with my thoughts on the Pavilion and the existing Band Shell. My thoughts remain unchanged from when I posted the blog. The Vision Iowa grant does not give us the opportunity to save the Band Shell at the existing site. In my opinion, the various components of the Vision Iowa project will do more to benefit the majority of the community than saving the Band Shell where it sits. Given that I have to choose between the VI proceeds and the Band Shell, I choose VI. Accordingly, I support the inclusion of $500,000 in city funding as indicated above to support this aspect of the project. My hope is that a portion of the $500,000 could be used to move the existing Band Shell to Ray Rorick (or any other suitable location that meets the majority approval of the community).
Mason City Architectural Interpretive Center
This portion of Vision Iowa does not utilize taxpayer dollars. I think the Interpretive Center will be a nice cultural addition to the community, and it is funded entirely by Vision Iowa, private contributions, and a Great Places grant.
Recreational Trails
The need to improve the trails system has been a component of every study we’ve completed in the last decade. Vision Iowa has become the impetus to complete work we’ve talked about for years, but haven’t followed through on in terms of financial investment.
Federal Avenue Streetscape
This component is paid for entirely by the taxpayers, however, it is a project identified by both the Comprehensive Plan, and the Downtown Comprehensive Plan. Again, we’ve talked for years, but have not taken any action. This is an outstanding opportunity to enhance the mall entrance and the plaza, which will compliment restoration of the Park Inn, the City National Bank Building, Central Park, and a number of private business investments in progress and recently completed. That said, I want to develop a reasonable approximation of the cost of infrastructure repairs in this area so we understand the real impact on the taxpayers. It is important to remember that this initiative is in the city’s long term plans regardless of whether or not the VI initiative existed. It is not a question of “if” we spend the money, it is a question of “when”. By proceeding now, we can count money we’ll spend anyway against the required community match to leverage the $9,000,000 VI grant.
Parking Structure
Like the Federal Avenue Streetscape, a downtown parking structure is in the city’s CIP budget. It is there not because of the Park Inn restoration, but because it was identified as a need by the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Comprehensive Plan. The $1.8 million included in the VI application came right out of the city’s CIP. Like the streetscape, it is not a question of “if” but “when”. By proceeding now, we benefit the Park Inn and are able to count it as a portion of the community match. At this point, it appears we are down to three options for the parking structure.
One option is to demo several buildings on the west side of the north mall entrance. I do not support this option: I am not interested in tearing down these buildings, and one of the owners has told me he has no interest in selling. Given that I don’t like this option anyway, I absolutely have no interest in imminent domain, which would be required to proceed if the owner does not want to sell. In my mind, this option does not exist (and that has been my consistent position since last July).
The other options include building the structure in the Bank of America lot, or on the city owned lot west of City Hall. While the BOA option is closer to the Park Inn, this will be the more expensive of the options since we’d have to acquire the land. The financial realities may dictate the structure go in the lot west of City Hall. The important thing at this stage is that we know we have options that can be completed within budget to satisfy the requirements of the VI contract.
Financial Analysis
There are many ways of looking at this project, and in many respects, how you look at it depends on what you want to see.
For example, one could say that for a taxpayer investment of $12.3 million, we will be able to complete $34 million in community enhancements by utilizing our taxpayer investment to leverage state and federal grants and private contributions. This is equivalent to adding value to the community for thirty-six cents on the dollar.
Another way of looking at it is to deduct the $7.65 million from the taxpayer investment, since the voters decided we’d move ahead on the Library renovation regardless of what happened with our Vision Iowa application. This implies we are spending and incremental $4.65 million to leverage $26.4 million in added value to the community (bond referendum deducted from taxpayer contribution and total project since voters have already decided). This is equivalent to adding value to the community for 17.6 cents on the dollar.
Or, one could deduct the trails ($750,000), Federal Avenue Streetscape ($1.6 million), and the Parking Structure ($1.8 million) from the $4.65 million taxpayer investment, since these are included in the CIP regardless of whether or not we take VI money. This leaves only the $500,000 included for the Pavilion, but not yet agreed upon by the council. From this perspective, $500,000 of incremental taxpayer investment leverages the $26.4 million, the equivalent of adding value to the community for two cents on the dollar.
Admittedly, these costs do not include all the costs we will incur (as was pointed out earlier); we will have to spend more on underground infrastructure for the Streetscape. But, even if we were to triple the incremental investment (Northbridge has been used as an example of a project that tripled) and the $4.65 million turned into $14 million, the total taxpayer investment of $21.6 million (Library bond added) would then be leveraging $43.3 million in investment, equivalent to fifty cents on the dollar.
At 50 cents on the dollar, this would still be a good deal for the community. And I can’t imagine us overrunning costs by a factor of three; I really believe we have learned from Northbridge. With the due diligence we have in progress, I think we will be able to do a reasonable job of forecasting our risk and upside cost. Then, as mentioned earlier, we need develop our expenditure forecast and evaluate the annual impact to the average taxpayer.
Vision Iowa Contract
This is where the rubber hits the road. The Vision Iowa contract really pins us down as a community, but it is representative of the terms and conditions that have been imposed on other communities that have received VI awards.
Last Tuesday a conference call took place by various parties to the contract. The call included the Vision Iowa attorneys, a Cerro Gordo County representative and attorney, Chamber Director Robin Anderson and Jerry Stambaugh (the Chamber’s attorney), Brent Tout and Tom Meyer (the city’s attorney), and Councilman Weaver. A second conference call is anticipated this next Tuesday.
The contract establishes a completion date for all aspects of the project of June of 2011. The dates indicated in the table above are targets: in the final analysis, everything MUST be complete by June 30, 2011.
Vision Iowa will reimburse the city at a rate of 26% of eligible expenses that have been incurred, or $1 million dollars (whichever is less) per quarter, meaning it will take a minimum of nine quarters to receive the entire nine million. So, each of our projects will need to be coordinated from a scheduling and cash flow basis to match the total of funds available. This is another reason I’d like staff to generate an expenditure timeline so we can evaluate the annual impact to our people.
The contract runs for 21 years. If any portion of the projects default, or are not maintained at a professional level in accordance with the highest industry standards during the first ten years of the agreement, the various parties to the contract are obligated to repay the entire nine million back to Vision Iowa. For years 11 through 21, the repayment liability for default decreases by 10% per year. By way of example, if the Park Inn hotelier closed shop in year 15, we would be obligated to establish a new service provider in a timely manner or, repay $4.5 million of the $9 million grant.
Without question, the greatest risk to the project is the viability of the hotel. Having read the feasibility study, I am more comfortable. However, I am hesitant to expose the taxpayer to this risk; this is a decision to be taken very seriously.
During my meeting with Brent and Robin on the 25th, I was informed potential service providers to WOTP prefer a longer term agreement. The WOTP Board believes they can have a long term contract in place during the fourth quarter of this year. If that agreement can mitigate the risk, the taxpayers are in a strong financial situation.
So, What’s Next?
The council will be asked to give preliminary approval to the contract on Tuesday, May 6th. I see no reason why we would not do so at that time, as several checkpoints remain after that date. The Vision Iowa Board is scheduled to approve the contract on May 14. The remaining signatories (which include the Mason City Chamber of Commerce Foundation, Wright on the Park, The River City Society for Historic Preservation, The Mason City Public Library Foundation, the City of Mason City, and Cerro Gordo County) have 45 days thereafter to give final approval and sign the contract. That buys us some time to work through some of the financial projections I have mentioned throughout should they not be ready on May 6th.
Furthermore, once the contract is signed, it is unlikely we will be in a position to spend much, if any money, the remainder of this year. There is much design work to be completed. The highest probability for early spending in the program is for the Pavilion, which utilizes just $250,000 of Vision Iowa money. So, if the WOTP Board is unable to secure a long term contract with a hotelier by the end of the year, the city (council) retains the option to default on the contract. Our only obligation at that time would be to repay any Vision Iowa funds that had been received up to the time of default. So, we can in theory sign the contract within the designated time frame, and limit our exposure to $250,000 (or less) for the balance of the year. This gives us additional time to sharpen pencils and make sure we have identified risk to the taxpayer, and developed contingency plans to address this risk.
And, there is another key check point yet this year. The community, led by the Chamber and project partners, is contractually obligated to raise the entire $4,317,177 from private sources (rounded to $4.3 million in table at beginning of this blog) within 180 days of when the contract is signed. If this money is not raised (contributions and pledges up to three years), the whole deal falls apart. So, by December 31st, we’ll know if we have a long term contract with a service provider for the Park Inn hotel, and we’ll know if we’ve met our fundraising obligation. Our exposure between now and then is limited to what we spend the balance of this year at 26 cents on the dollar for “eligible” expenses.
Development Agreement
One of the items Brent, Robin, and I discussed on the 25th was the potential for putting a development agreement in place with all the contractual parties. This agreement would identify scheduling obligations for each party, and would prorate financial responsibility should the community default anytime during the 21 year duration of the contract. This development agreement would help establish the responsibilities and deliverables of each entity, while also helping mitigate liability. For example, the development agreement could obligate the WOTP Board to execute a long term agreement with a hotelier before VI funds could be expended on the project.
At this point, I would like to see the council pass a resolution of intent to execute a development agreement as indicated prior to final approval of the contract, with a stipulation that the development agreement be in place before public monies are expended. That too would buy us some time to develop and approve the agreement on down the road even as fundraising continues and we work towards the December 31 targets mentioned above. And, this further mitigates risk and keeps options open.
One thing we need to all be aware of is that the completion date for the overall program is June 30, 2011, As time goes by, construction schedules will be compressed, which in turn adds cost to meet the deadline. This is precisely why we need reliable project schedules and cash flow forecasts for each component and the total program, and each entity needs to be accountable to hold to the schedule at the agreed upon cost.
Final Thoughts
For years I’ve heard folks complain that we aren’t moving the community forward. This is a tremendous opportunity to add value to the community at a fraction of the total cost to the taxpayer. I’ve been to Dubuque, and I’ve seen what Vision Iowa funding can do to transform an entire community when the leaders have the courage to take an educated, calculated risk. We have that opportunity now, and we may never have it again in our lifetime.
There is a cost to each of us, to be sure. But there is a cost for doing nothing as well. As our population declines and we have more senior citizens on fixed incomes, we will be forced to increase taxes just to maintain status quo. And, it is entirely conceivable that such tax increases could surpass those we now consider not for status quo, but for growth. Arguably, this overall initiative will not add jobs, nor will it grow the tax base. But, it will contribute mightily to the quality of life for those of us that live here. And, it will further enhance our community and North Iowa as a destination. As we’ve discussed these past months with the Hotel/Motel tax referendum, tourism and retail are big bucks to Mason City, and these strengths help us hold the line on taxes.
I would be remiss not to touch base on the role of the Chamber in this initiative. The Chamber is not “running” Mason City. The Chamber has worked diligently with a number of partners, which include city representation, to create an opportunity for the community. The Chamber in and of itself cannot move this project forward. In the end it will come down to four YES or NO votes by people the community has selected to represent their viewpoints. The Chamber has done an outstanding job representing the community and creating an opportunity for the council and community to consider. It is not uncommon for the city to hire outside agencies to represent our interests, like when we hire engineering firms to apply for federal clean air attainment funding for overpasses. In this case, the Chamber worked for the community for free. And quite honestly, the Council could have never pulled this off……none of us have the time or the expertise to bring a project of this magnitude to the point we now find ourselves. It is worth noting we’ve debated the Federal Avenue Streetscape for years now, and nothing has happened. That is now but one component of a fascinating initiative. I for one would like to thank the Chamber and all the project partners for the hard work and dedication for creating an opportunity that could positively reshape the community.
I have been to three Vision Iowa meetings. The Board members are tough, savvy business men and women, and it is a difficult task to receive an award. It is amazing that we were not only successful with our application, but we were granted the entire remaining amount of funding. The Vision Iowa Board believes in this project, and they believe in Mason City. If that were not true, we would not be having this community dialogue.
Now, we need to believe in ourselves.
Scott Tornquist
The following charts indicate the target completion dates for each of the seven components of the Vision Iowa project, and the project budgets and sources of funding (double click on image to enlarge):
Impact on Taxpayers
With approval of the Vision Iowa contract, council will be committing $12.3 million towards the $34 million dollar project. Of the $12.3 million, $7.65 million was approved by the voters for the Library referendum that was on the ballot last November. This leaves $4.65 million yet to be approved.
As indicated in the preceding chart, the $4.65 million is distributed across four of the seven Vision Iowa components as follows: Performing Arts Pavilion ($500,000), Recreational Trails ($750,000), Federal Avenue Streetscape ($1,600,000), and a Parking Structure ($1,800,000). Thought on each of these components is included below.
Our City Administrator has been able to work with staff and outside resources the past several weeks to shore up our comfort level with the accuracy of the estimates for the taxpayer funded portion of the projects. While that process continues, we are working to identify and quantify risk to each of these numbers so we understand not only where we are starting these projects out, but where we might end up if some of the unknowns materialize.
Though not directly part of the Vision Iowa scope and application, I have requested that we add a contingency amount to the $4.65 million that represents an insurance policy of sorts (for worst case scenario planning purposes only) against potential overruns to deal with unknowns. Further, we know the city will incorporate additional costs required to complete these projects efficiently. For example, the Federal Avenue Streetscape dollars deal strictly with work above ground. We know we need to replace the infrastructure below the street before we complete the Streetscape project. I’d like to add these costs to the $4.65 million (for planning purposes only), and similar required work that is in the short and long term plans (but will require expediting) so we can come up with an accurate financial projection of the real impact over the next five years.
Once we have this revised number, I have requested that staff generate a cash flow forecast that demonstrates our total spending pattern over the life of the project, including the incidental work the city will have to incorporate to facilitate the projects. Then, once the spending forecast is made, we need to communicate the impact to property taxes for the average taxpayer over the life of the project to support the Vision Iowa program. The City Administrator believes these financial projections can be completed prior to May 6, when the council votes on the contract for the first time.
Park Inn/National Bank
This week the council was copied on the Phase II Comprehensive Market Study Report prepared for the Wright on the Park Board by Hospitality Marketers International, Inc., dated December 2007. The report is exhaustive (72 pages) not including an addendum and executive summary. I have reviewed this report in detail, and am encouraged by the findings of an independent analysis. Though there are risks to the business plan for a future service provider (as is common in any business venture), the report indicates the Park Inn Hotel can fill a void in the market, and should be the rate leader in this market place. As supported by this independent report, I believe that reopening the property as a hotel is viable. As I policy maker, I want to make sure we insulate the taxpayers, to the best of our ability, from the inherent risk to this phase of VI (see “Contract” below).
One of the attractive features of Vision Iowa is that as a community we can complete the Park Inn AND the City National Bank restorations without direct investment of taxpayer dollars, a commitment made to the community a number of years ago. All of the support is indirect, and is comprised of initiatives we would undertake as a community regardless of the disposition of the Park Inn Hotel.
Mason City Public Library
Council opinion on this project is now irrelevant……the voters approved the bond referendum for the lions share of the project last November. Vision Iowa will contribute $1,000,000 to the project, leaving $591,840 to be raised from private sources.
Performing Arts Pavilion
The blog preceding this one deals exclusively with my thoughts on the Pavilion and the existing Band Shell. My thoughts remain unchanged from when I posted the blog. The Vision Iowa grant does not give us the opportunity to save the Band Shell at the existing site. In my opinion, the various components of the Vision Iowa project will do more to benefit the majority of the community than saving the Band Shell where it sits. Given that I have to choose between the VI proceeds and the Band Shell, I choose VI. Accordingly, I support the inclusion of $500,000 in city funding as indicated above to support this aspect of the project. My hope is that a portion of the $500,000 could be used to move the existing Band Shell to Ray Rorick (or any other suitable location that meets the majority approval of the community).
Mason City Architectural Interpretive Center
This portion of Vision Iowa does not utilize taxpayer dollars. I think the Interpretive Center will be a nice cultural addition to the community, and it is funded entirely by Vision Iowa, private contributions, and a Great Places grant.
Recreational Trails
The need to improve the trails system has been a component of every study we’ve completed in the last decade. Vision Iowa has become the impetus to complete work we’ve talked about for years, but haven’t followed through on in terms of financial investment.
Federal Avenue Streetscape
This component is paid for entirely by the taxpayers, however, it is a project identified by both the Comprehensive Plan, and the Downtown Comprehensive Plan. Again, we’ve talked for years, but have not taken any action. This is an outstanding opportunity to enhance the mall entrance and the plaza, which will compliment restoration of the Park Inn, the City National Bank Building, Central Park, and a number of private business investments in progress and recently completed. That said, I want to develop a reasonable approximation of the cost of infrastructure repairs in this area so we understand the real impact on the taxpayers. It is important to remember that this initiative is in the city’s long term plans regardless of whether or not the VI initiative existed. It is not a question of “if” we spend the money, it is a question of “when”. By proceeding now, we can count money we’ll spend anyway against the required community match to leverage the $9,000,000 VI grant.
Parking Structure
Like the Federal Avenue Streetscape, a downtown parking structure is in the city’s CIP budget. It is there not because of the Park Inn restoration, but because it was identified as a need by the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Comprehensive Plan. The $1.8 million included in the VI application came right out of the city’s CIP. Like the streetscape, it is not a question of “if” but “when”. By proceeding now, we benefit the Park Inn and are able to count it as a portion of the community match. At this point, it appears we are down to three options for the parking structure.
One option is to demo several buildings on the west side of the north mall entrance. I do not support this option: I am not interested in tearing down these buildings, and one of the owners has told me he has no interest in selling. Given that I don’t like this option anyway, I absolutely have no interest in imminent domain, which would be required to proceed if the owner does not want to sell. In my mind, this option does not exist (and that has been my consistent position since last July).
The other options include building the structure in the Bank of America lot, or on the city owned lot west of City Hall. While the BOA option is closer to the Park Inn, this will be the more expensive of the options since we’d have to acquire the land. The financial realities may dictate the structure go in the lot west of City Hall. The important thing at this stage is that we know we have options that can be completed within budget to satisfy the requirements of the VI contract.
Financial Analysis
There are many ways of looking at this project, and in many respects, how you look at it depends on what you want to see.
For example, one could say that for a taxpayer investment of $12.3 million, we will be able to complete $34 million in community enhancements by utilizing our taxpayer investment to leverage state and federal grants and private contributions. This is equivalent to adding value to the community for thirty-six cents on the dollar.
Another way of looking at it is to deduct the $7.65 million from the taxpayer investment, since the voters decided we’d move ahead on the Library renovation regardless of what happened with our Vision Iowa application. This implies we are spending and incremental $4.65 million to leverage $26.4 million in added value to the community (bond referendum deducted from taxpayer contribution and total project since voters have already decided). This is equivalent to adding value to the community for 17.6 cents on the dollar.
Or, one could deduct the trails ($750,000), Federal Avenue Streetscape ($1.6 million), and the Parking Structure ($1.8 million) from the $4.65 million taxpayer investment, since these are included in the CIP regardless of whether or not we take VI money. This leaves only the $500,000 included for the Pavilion, but not yet agreed upon by the council. From this perspective, $500,000 of incremental taxpayer investment leverages the $26.4 million, the equivalent of adding value to the community for two cents on the dollar.
Admittedly, these costs do not include all the costs we will incur (as was pointed out earlier); we will have to spend more on underground infrastructure for the Streetscape. But, even if we were to triple the incremental investment (Northbridge has been used as an example of a project that tripled) and the $4.65 million turned into $14 million, the total taxpayer investment of $21.6 million (Library bond added) would then be leveraging $43.3 million in investment, equivalent to fifty cents on the dollar.
At 50 cents on the dollar, this would still be a good deal for the community. And I can’t imagine us overrunning costs by a factor of three; I really believe we have learned from Northbridge. With the due diligence we have in progress, I think we will be able to do a reasonable job of forecasting our risk and upside cost. Then, as mentioned earlier, we need develop our expenditure forecast and evaluate the annual impact to the average taxpayer.
Vision Iowa Contract
This is where the rubber hits the road. The Vision Iowa contract really pins us down as a community, but it is representative of the terms and conditions that have been imposed on other communities that have received VI awards.
Last Tuesday a conference call took place by various parties to the contract. The call included the Vision Iowa attorneys, a Cerro Gordo County representative and attorney, Chamber Director Robin Anderson and Jerry Stambaugh (the Chamber’s attorney), Brent Tout and Tom Meyer (the city’s attorney), and Councilman Weaver. A second conference call is anticipated this next Tuesday.
The contract establishes a completion date for all aspects of the project of June of 2011. The dates indicated in the table above are targets: in the final analysis, everything MUST be complete by June 30, 2011.
Vision Iowa will reimburse the city at a rate of 26% of eligible expenses that have been incurred, or $1 million dollars (whichever is less) per quarter, meaning it will take a minimum of nine quarters to receive the entire nine million. So, each of our projects will need to be coordinated from a scheduling and cash flow basis to match the total of funds available. This is another reason I’d like staff to generate an expenditure timeline so we can evaluate the annual impact to our people.
The contract runs for 21 years. If any portion of the projects default, or are not maintained at a professional level in accordance with the highest industry standards during the first ten years of the agreement, the various parties to the contract are obligated to repay the entire nine million back to Vision Iowa. For years 11 through 21, the repayment liability for default decreases by 10% per year. By way of example, if the Park Inn hotelier closed shop in year 15, we would be obligated to establish a new service provider in a timely manner or, repay $4.5 million of the $9 million grant.
Without question, the greatest risk to the project is the viability of the hotel. Having read the feasibility study, I am more comfortable. However, I am hesitant to expose the taxpayer to this risk; this is a decision to be taken very seriously.
During my meeting with Brent and Robin on the 25th, I was informed potential service providers to WOTP prefer a longer term agreement. The WOTP Board believes they can have a long term contract in place during the fourth quarter of this year. If that agreement can mitigate the risk, the taxpayers are in a strong financial situation.
So, What’s Next?
The council will be asked to give preliminary approval to the contract on Tuesday, May 6th. I see no reason why we would not do so at that time, as several checkpoints remain after that date. The Vision Iowa Board is scheduled to approve the contract on May 14. The remaining signatories (which include the Mason City Chamber of Commerce Foundation, Wright on the Park, The River City Society for Historic Preservation, The Mason City Public Library Foundation, the City of Mason City, and Cerro Gordo County) have 45 days thereafter to give final approval and sign the contract. That buys us some time to work through some of the financial projections I have mentioned throughout should they not be ready on May 6th.
Furthermore, once the contract is signed, it is unlikely we will be in a position to spend much, if any money, the remainder of this year. There is much design work to be completed. The highest probability for early spending in the program is for the Pavilion, which utilizes just $250,000 of Vision Iowa money. So, if the WOTP Board is unable to secure a long term contract with a hotelier by the end of the year, the city (council) retains the option to default on the contract. Our only obligation at that time would be to repay any Vision Iowa funds that had been received up to the time of default. So, we can in theory sign the contract within the designated time frame, and limit our exposure to $250,000 (or less) for the balance of the year. This gives us additional time to sharpen pencils and make sure we have identified risk to the taxpayer, and developed contingency plans to address this risk.
And, there is another key check point yet this year. The community, led by the Chamber and project partners, is contractually obligated to raise the entire $4,317,177 from private sources (rounded to $4.3 million in table at beginning of this blog) within 180 days of when the contract is signed. If this money is not raised (contributions and pledges up to three years), the whole deal falls apart. So, by December 31st, we’ll know if we have a long term contract with a service provider for the Park Inn hotel, and we’ll know if we’ve met our fundraising obligation. Our exposure between now and then is limited to what we spend the balance of this year at 26 cents on the dollar for “eligible” expenses.
Development Agreement
One of the items Brent, Robin, and I discussed on the 25th was the potential for putting a development agreement in place with all the contractual parties. This agreement would identify scheduling obligations for each party, and would prorate financial responsibility should the community default anytime during the 21 year duration of the contract. This development agreement would help establish the responsibilities and deliverables of each entity, while also helping mitigate liability. For example, the development agreement could obligate the WOTP Board to execute a long term agreement with a hotelier before VI funds could be expended on the project.
At this point, I would like to see the council pass a resolution of intent to execute a development agreement as indicated prior to final approval of the contract, with a stipulation that the development agreement be in place before public monies are expended. That too would buy us some time to develop and approve the agreement on down the road even as fundraising continues and we work towards the December 31 targets mentioned above. And, this further mitigates risk and keeps options open.
One thing we need to all be aware of is that the completion date for the overall program is June 30, 2011, As time goes by, construction schedules will be compressed, which in turn adds cost to meet the deadline. This is precisely why we need reliable project schedules and cash flow forecasts for each component and the total program, and each entity needs to be accountable to hold to the schedule at the agreed upon cost.
Final Thoughts
For years I’ve heard folks complain that we aren’t moving the community forward. This is a tremendous opportunity to add value to the community at a fraction of the total cost to the taxpayer. I’ve been to Dubuque, and I’ve seen what Vision Iowa funding can do to transform an entire community when the leaders have the courage to take an educated, calculated risk. We have that opportunity now, and we may never have it again in our lifetime.
There is a cost to each of us, to be sure. But there is a cost for doing nothing as well. As our population declines and we have more senior citizens on fixed incomes, we will be forced to increase taxes just to maintain status quo. And, it is entirely conceivable that such tax increases could surpass those we now consider not for status quo, but for growth. Arguably, this overall initiative will not add jobs, nor will it grow the tax base. But, it will contribute mightily to the quality of life for those of us that live here. And, it will further enhance our community and North Iowa as a destination. As we’ve discussed these past months with the Hotel/Motel tax referendum, tourism and retail are big bucks to Mason City, and these strengths help us hold the line on taxes.
I would be remiss not to touch base on the role of the Chamber in this initiative. The Chamber is not “running” Mason City. The Chamber has worked diligently with a number of partners, which include city representation, to create an opportunity for the community. The Chamber in and of itself cannot move this project forward. In the end it will come down to four YES or NO votes by people the community has selected to represent their viewpoints. The Chamber has done an outstanding job representing the community and creating an opportunity for the council and community to consider. It is not uncommon for the city to hire outside agencies to represent our interests, like when we hire engineering firms to apply for federal clean air attainment funding for overpasses. In this case, the Chamber worked for the community for free. And quite honestly, the Council could have never pulled this off……none of us have the time or the expertise to bring a project of this magnitude to the point we now find ourselves. It is worth noting we’ve debated the Federal Avenue Streetscape for years now, and nothing has happened. That is now but one component of a fascinating initiative. I for one would like to thank the Chamber and all the project partners for the hard work and dedication for creating an opportunity that could positively reshape the community.
I have been to three Vision Iowa meetings. The Board members are tough, savvy business men and women, and it is a difficult task to receive an award. It is amazing that we were not only successful with our application, but we were granted the entire remaining amount of funding. The Vision Iowa Board believes in this project, and they believe in Mason City. If that were not true, we would not be having this community dialogue.
Now, we need to believe in ourselves.
Scott Tornquist
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Thoughts on the Band Shell
Our community has a rich musical heritage to be sure. We celebrate this heritage at annual events like the band festival and tuba Christmas, and we honor it with outstanding opportunities through our school system, Music Man Square, and our Municipal Band.
I have spoken to a number of our music department teachers at MCHS, and to a person they have proclaimed the inadequacy of the existing band shell due to space constraints and acoustic limitations. In recent years it has not been uncommon for the existing band shell to stand unused while venues instead opt for the Muse Norris mobile stage parked nearby. This in and of itself speaks volumes as to the viability of the existing band shell.
And so roughly ten years ago a group of citizens, with Park Board endorsement, made plans to build a new pavilion at the same location as the existing band shell. Those that wanted to save the existing structure were free to do so, if they could raise the requisite funds. If successful, the band shell would be relocated to the north side of the hill atop which the 457 stands. If not successful, the existing band shell would meet its demise via the wrecking ball.
And as it were, neither those wishing to preserve the band shell, or build the new pavilion, made a great deal of headway in raising funds the past 7 or 8 years. However, funding for design and construction of the new pavilion was included in the successful Vision Iowa application, breathing new life into both the pavilion initiative, and the desire by some to save the existing structure.
1200 plus people (and growing) have signed a petition to not only save the band shell, but to also preserve it at its current location. At the same time, the contingent award of $9,000,000 Vision Iowa funding requires construction of the new pavilion at the site of the existing band shell.
In all honesty, I’m not a real musical guy. My version of carrying a tune is sticking an ipod in my pocket. I have no real passion for the existing band shell, and personally don’t care if it ceases to exist. However, I also realize that a great deal of the passion for the band shell is sentimental, born of the childhood memories of playing in and around the band shell, and listening to the bands of old when times were simpler. I was well into my adult years when we made this community our home, so I do not share these experiences. I can appreciate what these sentiments represent, and so I am in favor of saving the structure in difference to those that care for it so deeply.
Though the proposed location north of the train has been determined to be the best of potential locations in East Park, I’ve never been real excited about that spot. While the structure would be saved, practical use of it would be limited. It’s proximity to the new pavilion would not likely permit concurrent use due to sound/noise constraints. So it would seem to be a most likely candidate for use when the pavilion is not being utilized. However, if that’s the case, the entity needing a venue would more likely select the pavilion over the band shell due to the space and acoustic limitations already identified. So, though the band shell would be saved, it would most likely be relegated to the status of nostalgic relic.
So, why don’t we build the pavilion elsewhere? East Park is the traditional location for our significant community celebrations. It is centrally located, and has the most space and resources for large events. This is the park in which we most often celebrate our musical heritage. This is the best location for the pavilion, which is probably why the band shell was built there in the first place. The Vision Iowa Board likely realized this as well, which may explain why the contingent grant is predicated on building the new pavilion at this location.
At the April 3rd meeting of the Mason City Historic Preservation Commission, Councilman Weaver articulated a potential solution that has been dismissed in the past, but whose time may have come. Weaver suggests we save the existing band shell, relocate it to Ray Rorick Park, and restore it to its original design for historical accuracy. This could take place concurrent with application to place it on the National Register of Historic places. We know this to be possible, as the Stockman House was relocated after it was placed on the National Register.
I think this suggestion is a great idea, and I thank Councilman Weaver for championing the cause. As Weaver envisions, the band shell could be placed on the east side of Big Blue where the topography would seem to be a natural fit. In the summertime, kids and families could float on Big Blue or enjoy the beach, while local bands could entertain from the newly relocated band shell. With recent additions of the skate park, the old ice arena, and utility additions that are in progress right now, this would further enhance what is becoming a wonderful park focused on our youth. And for those that argue that too much time and attention is spent on East Park, this would further enhance a great park in another area of the city.
Just as the Vision Iowa initiative consists of many community groups that have come together for a common cause, I think we need to work to make the save the band shell folks part of the same team. In light of events that were not foreseeable when plans were made nearly a decade ago, it is no longer justifiable to force a group of citizens to raise their own funds to save the band shell or watch its demise. No, we need to make relocation and restoration an integral part of our Vision Iowa program. Mason City has received all of the remaining Vision Iowa funds. The city budget already includes $500,000 for the pavilion (which is currently in out years, and has NOT been formally adopted by the council). So it would seem funding for this additional scope would have to come from incremental private fundraising. Rather than having two local groups competing for funding for related projects, we should roll all these efforts into n expanded initiative and all work together.
We need to also realize that this has both short and long term cost implications. In the short term, we have the incremental cost to move and restore the band shell. In the long term, we must be prepared as a community to invest the requisite maintenance dollars into the parks board budget that have obviously been lacking based upon visual examination of the existing band shell. It is not fair or reasonable to expect the parks board budget to remain fixed while the assets it is expected to maintain grows. If as a community we desire to save, enhance, and expand the venues we have, we must be prepared to accept the cost to properly maintain these assets. Ultimately this materializes through property taxes that are funneled to the parks board for proper application.
Integral to the success of such a compromise is the active participation in fundraising from those clamoring to save the band shell. To be sure, the existing Vision Iowa team has their hands full with commitments that have already been made. The involvement of those that signed the petition working to raise money and help manage this incremental scope will be vital to the success of the overall initiative.
I am hopeful that we can come together as a community and support Councilman Weavers suggestion. The existing location has been determined to be the best spot for an appropriate venue. The new pavilion would remedy all the inadequacies of the existing band shell, and would honor the traditional location of our community celebrations. By moving the band shell to Ray Rorick, we not only save it for posterity, but we reintroduce functional relevance.
The Vision Iowa initiative is huge for Mason City and North Iowa. The Vision Iowa Board has made a significant statement in supporting our application, and the whole state will be watching us. We are positioned to become the community everyone is talking about as energetic, visionary, and progressive. I believe this quality of life initiative can be the instigator of renewed growth in the region. And so, from my perspective, compromise is essential. I will be unable to muster enough passion for the existing band shell to reject $9,000,000 in Vision Iowa funding in favor of maintaining an inadequate structure in a prime location.
In my opinion, Councilman Weavers suggestion represents the most logical, workable compromise I have heard to date, and in the absence of any better ideas, I support it completely. Let’s lock arms and make this work!
Scott Tornquist
I have spoken to a number of our music department teachers at MCHS, and to a person they have proclaimed the inadequacy of the existing band shell due to space constraints and acoustic limitations. In recent years it has not been uncommon for the existing band shell to stand unused while venues instead opt for the Muse Norris mobile stage parked nearby. This in and of itself speaks volumes as to the viability of the existing band shell.
And so roughly ten years ago a group of citizens, with Park Board endorsement, made plans to build a new pavilion at the same location as the existing band shell. Those that wanted to save the existing structure were free to do so, if they could raise the requisite funds. If successful, the band shell would be relocated to the north side of the hill atop which the 457 stands. If not successful, the existing band shell would meet its demise via the wrecking ball.
And as it were, neither those wishing to preserve the band shell, or build the new pavilion, made a great deal of headway in raising funds the past 7 or 8 years. However, funding for design and construction of the new pavilion was included in the successful Vision Iowa application, breathing new life into both the pavilion initiative, and the desire by some to save the existing structure.
1200 plus people (and growing) have signed a petition to not only save the band shell, but to also preserve it at its current location. At the same time, the contingent award of $9,000,000 Vision Iowa funding requires construction of the new pavilion at the site of the existing band shell.
In all honesty, I’m not a real musical guy. My version of carrying a tune is sticking an ipod in my pocket. I have no real passion for the existing band shell, and personally don’t care if it ceases to exist. However, I also realize that a great deal of the passion for the band shell is sentimental, born of the childhood memories of playing in and around the band shell, and listening to the bands of old when times were simpler. I was well into my adult years when we made this community our home, so I do not share these experiences. I can appreciate what these sentiments represent, and so I am in favor of saving the structure in difference to those that care for it so deeply.
Though the proposed location north of the train has been determined to be the best of potential locations in East Park, I’ve never been real excited about that spot. While the structure would be saved, practical use of it would be limited. It’s proximity to the new pavilion would not likely permit concurrent use due to sound/noise constraints. So it would seem to be a most likely candidate for use when the pavilion is not being utilized. However, if that’s the case, the entity needing a venue would more likely select the pavilion over the band shell due to the space and acoustic limitations already identified. So, though the band shell would be saved, it would most likely be relegated to the status of nostalgic relic.
So, why don’t we build the pavilion elsewhere? East Park is the traditional location for our significant community celebrations. It is centrally located, and has the most space and resources for large events. This is the park in which we most often celebrate our musical heritage. This is the best location for the pavilion, which is probably why the band shell was built there in the first place. The Vision Iowa Board likely realized this as well, which may explain why the contingent grant is predicated on building the new pavilion at this location.
At the April 3rd meeting of the Mason City Historic Preservation Commission, Councilman Weaver articulated a potential solution that has been dismissed in the past, but whose time may have come. Weaver suggests we save the existing band shell, relocate it to Ray Rorick Park, and restore it to its original design for historical accuracy. This could take place concurrent with application to place it on the National Register of Historic places. We know this to be possible, as the Stockman House was relocated after it was placed on the National Register.
I think this suggestion is a great idea, and I thank Councilman Weaver for championing the cause. As Weaver envisions, the band shell could be placed on the east side of Big Blue where the topography would seem to be a natural fit. In the summertime, kids and families could float on Big Blue or enjoy the beach, while local bands could entertain from the newly relocated band shell. With recent additions of the skate park, the old ice arena, and utility additions that are in progress right now, this would further enhance what is becoming a wonderful park focused on our youth. And for those that argue that too much time and attention is spent on East Park, this would further enhance a great park in another area of the city.
Just as the Vision Iowa initiative consists of many community groups that have come together for a common cause, I think we need to work to make the save the band shell folks part of the same team. In light of events that were not foreseeable when plans were made nearly a decade ago, it is no longer justifiable to force a group of citizens to raise their own funds to save the band shell or watch its demise. No, we need to make relocation and restoration an integral part of our Vision Iowa program. Mason City has received all of the remaining Vision Iowa funds. The city budget already includes $500,000 for the pavilion (which is currently in out years, and has NOT been formally adopted by the council). So it would seem funding for this additional scope would have to come from incremental private fundraising. Rather than having two local groups competing for funding for related projects, we should roll all these efforts into n expanded initiative and all work together.
We need to also realize that this has both short and long term cost implications. In the short term, we have the incremental cost to move and restore the band shell. In the long term, we must be prepared as a community to invest the requisite maintenance dollars into the parks board budget that have obviously been lacking based upon visual examination of the existing band shell. It is not fair or reasonable to expect the parks board budget to remain fixed while the assets it is expected to maintain grows. If as a community we desire to save, enhance, and expand the venues we have, we must be prepared to accept the cost to properly maintain these assets. Ultimately this materializes through property taxes that are funneled to the parks board for proper application.
Integral to the success of such a compromise is the active participation in fundraising from those clamoring to save the band shell. To be sure, the existing Vision Iowa team has their hands full with commitments that have already been made. The involvement of those that signed the petition working to raise money and help manage this incremental scope will be vital to the success of the overall initiative.
I am hopeful that we can come together as a community and support Councilman Weavers suggestion. The existing location has been determined to be the best spot for an appropriate venue. The new pavilion would remedy all the inadequacies of the existing band shell, and would honor the traditional location of our community celebrations. By moving the band shell to Ray Rorick, we not only save it for posterity, but we reintroduce functional relevance.
The Vision Iowa initiative is huge for Mason City and North Iowa. The Vision Iowa Board has made a significant statement in supporting our application, and the whole state will be watching us. We are positioned to become the community everyone is talking about as energetic, visionary, and progressive. I believe this quality of life initiative can be the instigator of renewed growth in the region. And so, from my perspective, compromise is essential. I will be unable to muster enough passion for the existing band shell to reject $9,000,000 in Vision Iowa funding in favor of maintaining an inadequate structure in a prime location.
In my opinion, Councilman Weavers suggestion represents the most logical, workable compromise I have heard to date, and in the absence of any better ideas, I support it completely. Let’s lock arms and make this work!
Scott Tornquist
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Proposed Funding (or Lack Thereof) of Community Colleges
At this point in the legislative session in Des Moines, I find myself disappointed with the proposed budget with respect to post secondary education. With a $60 million increase allocated for the three regent universities, the fifteen community colleges across the state are left to divy up a $5.5 million increase, an amount $11.4 million short of what the community colleges reportedly need. This threatens to leave the community colleges severely underfunded, and could result in double digit tuition hikes on people that can least afford them.
The national Skills2Compete campaign recently released a report entitled America’s Forgotten Middle Skill Jobs. This report indicates that middle skill jobs (jobs that require more education than a high school diploma, but less than a four year degree) make up half of all jobs (in the US) today. Iowa’s labor market is consistent with this finding.
Iowa employers are finding it increasingly difficult to find workers to fill good paying middle skill jobs, even when these jobs offer advancement opportunities. I’ve heard that same issue from a number of manufacturing company’s right here in Mason City. If the trend continues, the state is forecasting 150,000 surplus jobs by 2012.
The importance of community colleges appears to be lost at the federal level as well. Congress has recently authorized $42 billion to educate more engineers, scientists, and mathematicians with four year and advanced degrees. To be sure, these people are needed to keep us competitive in a global marketplace and to address our aging infrastructure. However, the work of these individuals should create many more middle skill jobs, so attention is needed in this area as well. Instead, training programs that prepare Iowans for such jobs have taken a $245 million cut in federal funding (nearly 8%).
Though all of this poses a problem, it also creates a significant opportunity. It is our community colleges that provide the necessary coursework to train the people needed to fill these jobs. The community colleges serve people that either cannot afford a traditional four year degree, or do not have the desire to pursue professions requiring a four year degree. It is imperative that we maintain funding mechanisms that make such educational opportunities affordable; our families are depending on us.
And consider this: 90% of community college graduates stay right here in Iowa. We need to attract new, younger people to Iowa to reverse our aging trend and population decline. It seems only logical to start this process by first retaining the good people we already have here!
Our recent universities are sitting on BILLIONS of dollars in endowments. Iowa’s community colleges have the 9th HIGHEST tuition rates in the country. Enrollment in high school careers programs is up, and community colleges are seeing record enrollments. We must end our decades old emphasis on preparing all high school students for college, and we must strengthen our community colleges to enable them to train the workforce that is needed now and in the foreseeable future. We must fund the community colleges at a level that avoids program cuts and tuition increases, even if it means cutting funding to the regent universities.
Scott Tornquist
The national Skills2Compete campaign recently released a report entitled America’s Forgotten Middle Skill Jobs. This report indicates that middle skill jobs (jobs that require more education than a high school diploma, but less than a four year degree) make up half of all jobs (in the US) today. Iowa’s labor market is consistent with this finding.
Iowa employers are finding it increasingly difficult to find workers to fill good paying middle skill jobs, even when these jobs offer advancement opportunities. I’ve heard that same issue from a number of manufacturing company’s right here in Mason City. If the trend continues, the state is forecasting 150,000 surplus jobs by 2012.
The importance of community colleges appears to be lost at the federal level as well. Congress has recently authorized $42 billion to educate more engineers, scientists, and mathematicians with four year and advanced degrees. To be sure, these people are needed to keep us competitive in a global marketplace and to address our aging infrastructure. However, the work of these individuals should create many more middle skill jobs, so attention is needed in this area as well. Instead, training programs that prepare Iowans for such jobs have taken a $245 million cut in federal funding (nearly 8%).
Though all of this poses a problem, it also creates a significant opportunity. It is our community colleges that provide the necessary coursework to train the people needed to fill these jobs. The community colleges serve people that either cannot afford a traditional four year degree, or do not have the desire to pursue professions requiring a four year degree. It is imperative that we maintain funding mechanisms that make such educational opportunities affordable; our families are depending on us.
And consider this: 90% of community college graduates stay right here in Iowa. We need to attract new, younger people to Iowa to reverse our aging trend and population decline. It seems only logical to start this process by first retaining the good people we already have here!
Our recent universities are sitting on BILLIONS of dollars in endowments. Iowa’s community colleges have the 9th HIGHEST tuition rates in the country. Enrollment in high school careers programs is up, and community colleges are seeing record enrollments. We must end our decades old emphasis on preparing all high school students for college, and we must strengthen our community colleges to enable them to train the workforce that is needed now and in the foreseeable future. We must fund the community colleges at a level that avoids program cuts and tuition increases, even if it means cutting funding to the regent universities.
Scott Tornquist
Monday, October 15, 2007
Village Cooperative of Mason City
In recent months I’ve had numerous people ask me why I voted the way I did on Aug. 7th, and what I think of the current situation with this project. The matter is complicated, and I have found myself having the same lengthy conversation time and time again. So, in the interest of “transparency” and efficiency, I offer my thoughts herein for your consideration………..
The Planning & Zoning Commission utilizes the Change of Zoning Checklist when evaluating the merit of various rezone requests that come before it for consideration. This checklist consists of seventeen questions divided into four general categories, and provides a consistent framework for reviewing applications. Some of the questions that would seem to have direct relevance to the Village Cooperative request for Pebble Creek are as follows:
BROADER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING EFFORTS
1. Does the requested rezoning conform to the City’s comprehensive plan and future land use map?
The original plan had issues with both the comp. plan and the land use map. The land use map has the parcel zoned RS8 (low density residential) consistent with the single family homes that have been built to date. These documents also show 4th Street continuing across the north side of the parcel one day, and a neighborhood commercial node at the corner of 4th and Taft. While the revised layout would now make the 4th Street extension and neighborhood commercial node possible, the issue with the land use map remains.
LAND USE NEEDS AND BALANCE
4. Does the requested rezoning provide adequate residential land uses to achieve diversity in location and type throughout the city?
Some have argued that the broad support for diverse neighborhoods supported by the comprehensive plan indicate that this specific parcel is appropriate for high density housing. If this were true, the land use map generated with the comprehensive plan, updated just last year, would have reflected higher density for this parcel rather than RS8. This neighborhood is arguably one of the most diverse in the community as it exists right now: the neighborhood includes low/moderate income housing, apartments, condominiums, and high end single family homes. The market has supported development of higher density housing at an accelerated rate, with single family housing following at a slower, but steady pace. The addition of single family housing on this parcel will bring the neighborhood back into balance.
Pebble Creek exists at its current location, and cannot be continued as a contiguous neighborhood in another part of the city. Conversely, Village Cooperative could be successful in many different areas of the community. Financial projections show that the highest and best use of this parcel is to let it mature as single family housing, as planned and executed to date. Specifically, were each development to start next year (Village Cooperative vs. commencement of RS-8 housing) on this tract, 15 years from now the residential development would be somewhere between EVEN and $375,000 dollars ahead of the incremental taxes VC is anticipated to generate. Thereafter, the residential development will return $30,000/yr in taxes over and above VC project. If we assume both projects have a 70 year life cycle, the residential development returns a minimum of $1.7 million in taxes to the general fund over and above Village Cooperative at this location (today’s dollars).
7. If there is a need for additional land to be rezoned as requested, should the rezoning be done in the areas requested or would the public interest be better served if the rezoning were done in other areas of the city?
The rezone request is for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Currently, there are no parcels in the city appropriately zoned and of sufficient size to receive this project. So, wherever this project ends up, a change of zone will be required.
The proposed building exceeds the height restrictions of the current zoning classification. Typically, such deviations require a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. However, building height is not regulated in a PUD; once the parcel is changed to PUD, the building receives a height variance to the city zoning ordinance by default. The primary issue with the project has not been with the targeted demographic (seniors), rather, it has been with the magnitude of the physical structure, both in terms of height and footprint.
One of the Broad Goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to achieve stakeholder collaboration in development decisions….. The current developer has not addressed neighborhood concerns. Rather, they have moved the building on the same parcel to take the neighborhood’s concerns out of play by eliminating the opportunity for a petition to force a super majority vote of the council. For this and other reasons expressed herein, I believe the public interest is better served if the rezoning were done in another area of the city.
8. Is there an alternative site for the suggested use that would eliminate the necessity for rezoning?
As stated above, wherever this project ends up, rezoning will be required. The question has not been “Do we want Village Cooperative in Mason City?”; rather, it has been, “Where is the best location for this project?”. Let me be very clear: I want to see the Village Cooperative project come to fruition in Mason City, and I want it to happen sooner rather than later. This is a unique housing alternative for seniors, and is a great project for the community. But, the facility must be located such that it compliments the surrounding area, rather than dominating the area. And, it must be situated on a parcel whereby it becomes the highest and best use for the property; financial projections do not show this to be the case on the proposed parcel.
Understandably, the parcel in Pebble Creek has outstanding curb appeal. Alternative locations may not command the same marketability to Village Cooperative, creating a financial hurdle that does not exist now. I have pledged to support an incentive package to help bridge this gap if we can find an alternate location that meets the needs of Village Cooperative and the needs of the adjacent neighborhood.
PRACTICAL QUESTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OF SITE
10. Does the requested rezoning lessen congestion in the street; secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other dangers; promote health and general welfare; provide adequate light and air; prevent overcrowding of land; avoid the undue concentration of population; facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer services, schools, parks and other public requirements; preserve the character of area or neighborhood; conserve the value of buildings; or encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout Mason City?
The last three items are a primary point of contention between the two sides; my specific thoughts on these areas are addressed in responses to related questions herein.
13. Would granting the rezoning request adversely affect property values of adjacent landowners to an unreasonable degree?
This is rather nebulous; what constitutes “unreasonable”. None of us know for certain if a project of this magnitude would adversely impact existing property values, but we do know this: if Village Cooperative proceeds on this parcel, the decision is irreversible, and there is no recourse to existing property owners after the fact if they are adversely impacted. We also know this: the people that live in Pebble Creek now have made a significant investment in their real estate, and thus in the community, and they did so believing the adjacent area would be developed as planned.
If indeed I’m going to make a mistake (on this or other similar matters), I’d rather make it in favor of existing citizens in their existing neighborhood (as opposed to protecting the interests of people that would like to move to a building that does not yet exist).
14. Would granting the rezoning request impose undue hardship on adjacent owners, such as noise, light and glare, odor, vibration or other nuisances?
From the perspective of the neighborhood, the height and magnitude of the proposed building is a nuisance that creates an undue hardship.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
The Village Cooperative discussion has morphed into an emotional rather than intellectual debate. The rhetoric that has been used to jack people up in attempt to rally the troops behind an US vs. THEM argument is irresponsible and is not conducive to community harmony. The vast majority of this rhetoric is being perpetrated by a company from out of town that wants what is best for its business model rather than what is best for the community it seeks to join. And now, in the midst of the next election cycle, we have council candidates that are all too willing to permit themselves to become pawns of the propaganda machine, further enabling a manipulation of the process.
This debate is not about excluding an entire demographic, our seniors, from a specific neighborhood. This is not an attack on senior citizens. Many of the existing home owners are themselves senior citizens. The neighborhood has coexisted with and been enriched by the Homestead Assisted Living. This debate is about balancing the desires of an existing neighborhood with the best interests of the entire community. The highest and best use of the land (from a tax revenue perspective) is to permit the parcel to develop consistent with the long term plan. This long term plan is supported by the land use maps included in the recently updated comprehensive plan, and is consistent with the development residents anticipated when they made their investment in this neighborhood.
I believe there are a number of areas in Mason City where this project could be of mutual benefit. Up to this point, Village Cooperative has insisted the project must be on the west side of town, and must be on this parcel. Prior to the denial of the rezone request on August 7th, there was no room for negotiation to move the building on the desired lot, or to consider alternative locations. Now, after the denial, the developer has found the ability to move the building after all. Admittedly, the layout is better than the original. However, the primary motivator to move the building was not to address neighborhood concerns; rather, it was to circumvent them. The new layout eliminates the opportunity for concerned neighbors to petition and thus force a super majority vote of the council. In short, were the council to vote exactly as it did on Aug. 7th (on this new configuration), the rezone request would be approved. Ultimately, the court will decide whether or not this revised request violates the spirit of the law placing a one year moratorium on a rezone request once it fails. Regardless of the legal ruling, I believe if we all work together we can find a site in Mason City where this project is compatible with the neighborhood, is warmly received, is a wonderful place for the residents to live, and is of mutual benefit to Village Cooperative and the community.
I have absolutely no issue with any of the seniors desiring to see this project materialize; my issue is with the developer. I believe Village Cooperative knows the market very well, and delivered a bill of sale it was not yet in a position to support. Understandably, the seniors that desire to become owner-occupants are very excited, and they see this wonderful opportunity at risk. Rather than working to deliver a project that is mutually beneficial, Village Cooperative management is feeding this fear by employing propaganda meant to focus on fabricated issues (class envy, money, age, social status) that have no bearing on the real problem (the shear magnitude of the project at the desired location).
As stated earlier, I want this project to happen, and I want it to happen in Mason City. At this point, I don’t really care if Village Cooperative is the developer or not, but for the sake of our seniors that desire this opportunity, I want to see a project of this nature break ground in the next six months. Regrettably, I don’t foresee an opportunity for me to support this project on the desired parcel in Pebble Creek. The issues I’ve expressed herein are insurmountable, unless and until Village Cooperative can work with the neighborhood to create a project that is supported by the majority of the neighborhood (including a number of folks west of Taft that have expressed opposition). Only at that point will “stakeholder collaboration” trump the financial “highest and best use” for this parcel.
And, if we cannot make this work with Village Cooperative, I would be in favor of recruiting a company to help satisfy this market need.
As always, I appreciate your thoughts…………
Scott Tornquist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)