Communication and consensus needed for efficient growth strategies

Fargo and North Dakota are currently in a strong financial situation, but we have important decisions to make as to how to best invest our public resources towards the highest priorities and the most public good.  We can continue to grow Fargo by protecting our public and private property and working towards more efficient use of current public assets, infrastructure, and buildings. 

I believe we need to encourage more development of property in our current footprint before expanding our boundaries prematurely to make the best use of public funds and to deliver city services in the most efficient, productive, manner.

Fargo has been working hard and investing large amounts of money and hours to plan, develop and improve our growth strategies, transit system, and more efficient land use policies.  The purpose is to create a more safe, efficient, and attractive city where people come to live, work, and play.  A community that provides our residents and students healthy, safe, and economical opportunities to walk, ride bike, take transit or drive.  This would also help improve our quality of life. 

I believe it's very important to work together with the school board towards this goal.  Road construction, energy, heating, and fuels costs are at an all time highs, sprawl will not help reduce those costs to our residents, where good urban design can.

  The school district is now considering an earlier bid letting this fall for start of the proposed new High School.  Before that decision is made, it may be very worthwhile to consider some of the long term ramifications and possible impacts on residents property taxes and future City of Fargo budgets due to an increase of hours, equipment, and fuel costs incurred through extension of city services to 70th Ave in an undeveloped, currently unprotected area outside the Fargo boundaries.  What fiscal effect could prematurely stretching city boundaries and services along with adding to already high energy costs have for all the citizens of Fargo?  

There is still time to consider and evaluate some of the many factors listed below that may have some significant impact on our current funding sources, local, state and federal. Some of the main issues that are unknown and that will be known by spring of 2009, the original start date of new High School are: 

• Outcome of new legislative session and potential property tax relief (Well know April 2009)
• Unknown impact of less driving and less gas tax revenue (state and federal) to transportation funding structures.
• Unknown response (Approved or denied) of residents for assessments for comprehensive flood plan
• What effects on stretching city services of Fire, Police, Garbage, Street Dept, Forestry on future Fargo budgets?
• What effect on developing a more efficient, and effective transit system?
• Is this site conducive to helping students choose to walk, bike or ride a bus, or does it encourage more driving and more roads to get there in a currently undeveloped area? 

 There's still time to find answers to these important questions and more, by opening a public dialogue between the Fargo School Board and the Fargo City Commission before the new schools building contracts are let.  Without consensus, and more due diligence on these unanswered questions, the consequences may be long term and hinder efficient growth and could significantly increase the cost of delivering city services. 

Posted by: Mike Williams on 9/08/2008 at 8:56 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink

New "improvement" to the Fargodome is a $30 million arena, more than the original estimate for the Dome itself when presented to the voters

I believe we need to promote and use the Civic, Fargodome, BSA, and coming Urban Plains Arena to their full potential before building yet another multipurpose arena.

We need to work to make better use of existing buildings and infrastructure in our current footprint to help make Fargo a more affordable, family friendly, community.

Fargo needs to be focusing on more comprehensive flood protection and public health and safety. Another new arena will not make anyones home or business safer, or reduce anyones property taxes, or avoid the cost of flood insurance. 

The city committed the escrow funds to create a financial foundation so the Fargodome will have a sustainable funding source for the 100 year structural life of the building after the sales tax expires this December 2008 so the Fargodome will not have to go back to the taxpayers for funding.

Using that escrow fund for another new $30,000,000 - $40,000,000 arena without a vote does not give the taxpayers more security, it puts the escrow fund at risk and depletes it as the Springstad Consultants report shows. 

I wonder, if more public funds for another multipurpose arena is such a good idea, what's the rush?  Why not ask the public to see if it's a high priority to them and put it to a vote? 

All I've asked from the beginning of this new public arena proposal is to leave the Fargodome money in escrow to continue to grow that fund like the chart shows, and meanwhile invite the public to weigh in on this opportunity, hear their ideas and priorities and put any proposal that would use millions of available funds to a public vote.

We had our bond consultant Springstad project out 25 years.  All scenarios have the $1 million deducted for the annual dome expense. 

The first scenario leaves all $29 million that is estimated to be available by the time the tax expires at the end of this year.  That scenario is the only one that is sustainable, and actually grows by reinvesting the amount of interest generated over the $1 million needed for the dome expenses annually. 

The next three scenarios show what happens to that same fund if the city chooses to take $15 million out to build another multi-purpose arena.  Two scenarios run into deficit in the 25 year projection, the other depletes the fund to $9.8 million with a severe downward trend that will also run into deficit as the interest generated shrinks each year with the $1 million dome expense being more than the interest generated from the diminishing principal. 

Here's the chart, which one would you invest in for the best long term, financial security for the dome, provide for unforeseen circumstances, and possibly create another sustainable funding source for community needs, without raising any taxes?

This Capital Improvement projection shows over $1 million a year going forward for the Fargodome alone, it doesn't consider CIP needs for another $30 million arena

CIP projections dome.jpg

This is the actual Capital Improvements for the 15 years of dome operations.  $43 million.  After lobby expansion, displays, and sound system upgrades, it's still $30 million for the 15 years, $2 million a year on average

Posted by: Mike Williams on 6/06/2008 at 10:21 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink

Let's ask the public about our public investment priorities as expenses exceed incomes

I believe we need to promote and use the Civic, Fargodome, BSA, and coming Urban Plains Arena to their full potential before building yet another multipurpose arena.

We need to work to make better use of existing buildings and infrastructure in our current footprint to help make Fargo a more affordable, family friendly, community.

Fargo needs to be focusing on more comprehensive flood protection and public health and safety. Another new arena will not make anyones home or business safer, or reduce anyones property taxes, or avoid the cost of flood insurance. 

The city committed the escrow funds to create a financial foundation so the Fargodome will have a sustainable funding source for the 100 year structural life of the building after the sales tax expires this December 2008 so the Fargodome will not have to go back to the taxpayers for funding.

Using that escrow fund for another new $30,000,000 - $40,000,000 arena without a vote does not give the taxpayers more security, it puts the escrow fund at risk and depletes it as the Springstad Consultants report shows. 

I wonder, if more public funds for another multipurpose arena is such a good idea, what's the rush?  Why not ask the public to see if it's a high priority to them and put it to a vote? 

All I've asked from the beginning of this new public arena proposal is to leave the Fargodome money in escrow to continue to grow that fund like the chart shows, and meanwhile invite the public to weigh in on this opportunity, hear their ideas and priorities and put any proposal that would use millions of available funds to a public vote.

We had our bond consultant Springstad project out 25 years.  All scenarios have the $1 million deducted for the annual dome expense. 

The first scenario leaves all $29 million that is estimated to be available by the time the tax expires at the end of this year.  That scenario is the only one that is sustainable, and actually grows by reinvesting the amount of interest generated over the $1 million needed for the dome expenses annually. 

The next three scenarios show what happens to that same fund if the city chooses to take $15 million out to build another multi-purpose arena.  Two scenarios run into deficit in the 25 year projection, the other depletes the fund to $9.8 million with a severe downward trend that will also run into deficit as the interest generated shrinks each year with the $1 million dome expense being more than the interest generated from the diminishing principal. 

Here's the chart, which one would you invest in for the best long term, financial security for the dome, provide for unforeseen circumstances, and possibly create another sustainable funding source for community needs, without raising any taxes?

This Capital Improvement projection shows over $1 million a year going forward for the Fargodome alone, it doesn't consider CIP needs for another $30 million arena

CIP projections dome.jpg

This is the actual Capital Improvements for the 15 years of dome operations.  $43 million.  After lobby expansion, displays, and sound system upgrades, it's still $30 million for the 15 years, $2 million a year on average

Posted by: Mike Williams on 5/15/2008 at 11:48 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink

Let's ask the voters before building the "Goldilocks" Arena

This new $30,000,000 to $40,000,000 dollar arena added to the Fargodome reminds me of an old story;

The Fabulous Fargodome that is paid for is too big

The recently refurbished (2004) Civic Center that is paid for is too old and too small

The paid for Bison Sports Arena is right across the street, the right size, but it's not new and doesn't have seat backs

The new Urban Plains Arena is just the right size and new, and will have seat backs, but it's too far away (7 miles from Dome)

Some think this new $30,000,000 - $40,000,000 Arena added to the dome might be just right

~ End of Story ~

I don't think adding another arena to the dome is a high priority and that the question should be put to a vote of the people of Fargo before it's built.

Leaving the projected $29 million escrow fund intact is the taxpayers insurance that the dome will be financially self sufficient for the projected 100 year life of the structure so they don't have to go back to taxpayers.  If there is any idea that would take principal away from that escrow, including a new arena or a community stewardship fund, the commission should ask the voters approval.

I believe we need to consider and compare projects and their opportunity costs to help make our best public investments.  I don't believe another $30,000,000 to $40,000,000 arena added to the Dome is a high priority, especially while we consider these needed investments for protecting our community.  

Protecting Fargo to an adequate level that corresponds with the new flood levels that will likely come out this year by the FEMA could help our residents avoid the high cost of flood insurance.  The discussed options for comprehensive flood protection for a 100 year flood range from $50 million to about $200 million.  We are also evaluating options for what it will take to protect from a 500 year flood. 

Fargo and North Dakota are currently in a strong financial situation, but we have to make decisions on how to best invest our resources towards the highest priorities and to make the most efficient use of current public assets and existing infrastructure and buildings. 

To me, the highest priorities for the city are public health and safety, infrastructure of roads, water, dikes and water management. 

Posted by: Mike Williams on 4/16/2008 at 7:17 PM | Comments (2) | Permalink

Let's ask voters before building proposed

Posted by: Mike Williams on 4/16/2008 at 10:43 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink