Today’s post is the fourth entry in a multi-part series about Decorah’s upcoming $18.88 million bond referendum which would provide funding for a new fire station and new or improved office space for the Parks and Recreation Department and for City Administration.
Part 1 - Nineteen Million Dollars - describes how we got here.
Part 2 - Should We Do Less? - considers cheaper alternatives.
Part 3 - A Complicated Ask - addresses the unclarity surrounding the referendum.
Today is the final post in the series. I’ll address some of the more common questions that are out there, as well as share some of my personal thoughts about the referendum.
Why not build in another location? Remember the 2016 flood?
We considered it, of course.
Our first step was a response-time analysis for potential building sites. Our fire department should be able to leave the city quickly in all directions. The way that rivers and roads work here means our preferred location must be fairly close to the College Street bridge.
We explored several alternates to the current campus. Building on a new site would mean acquiring a new site, which would cost a lot of money. And that’s assuming the present owner wanted to sell for a price we could afford.
Building on a new site would also mean physically separating our firefighters from their public safety colleagues in the Police Department, Sheriff’s Office, and Emergency Management.
Some community members believe that recent flooding events, especially the floods of 2016, should make us reluctant to build in the large section of our city protected by levees.
I take that argument very seriously. At the same time, we know that a different location would lead to worse response times and drive up project costs. Some of the alternatives I see community members suggest are far more flood prone than the current campus.
Our levee system protects Decorah against a 500-year flood event. That means we’re safe from a flood that climatologists predict will occur, on average, every 500 years on average. A 1000-year flood event would overwhelm our levees and lead to massive flooding, including homes, schools, city infrastructure, businesses, and more. It would be, in the literal sense, a disaster. That could happen next year. But it may not happen until after the design lifespan of the current levees.
We don’t just hope just hope to avoid disasters in Decorah. We plan to avoid them and to mitigate them. In my time on Council city staff has led us in hardening our flood defense systems. We invested in improved pumping systems, drinking water protection, stormwater upgrades, edge-of-stream improvements, and floodwater mitigation systems. Planning and action continues.
So we don’t just hope to avoid awful flood events. But we have to strike the right balance between precaution and paranoia. There are other bad things that can happen to a town besides a flood disaster, and some of those things become more certain if we leave ourself financially vulnerable, or served by a fire station not centrally-located.
The Woodwell Climate Center did a study attempting to predict future flooding scenarios for Decorah. The center predicts that, over the next hundred years, extreme flooding events in Decorah will become less common, not more common. This is mostly due to predicted climate change effects.
In summary: we can build most affordably on the current site, which is perfectly-located and encourages interactions between various public safety agencies. Climate scientists suggest that doing so is less of a risk today than it was when we built the current building. Or we can build at greater cost in a less ideal location, but more secure against extreme flood disasters.
I understand if you think an alternative site is a better idea. I disagree.
Why didn’t you let Menards come to Decorah? Then you would have more tax revenue to pay for projects like this.
I lived in Wisconsin in 2017 when that decision was made.
Only one current council member was on the council then.
I doubt things would be the same today. I have plenty of reasons for thinking that if you care to hear them.
How would this referendum affect my taxes?
The city’s referendum page has some estimates, but there are a couple caveats:
These estimates assume we will borrow the entire approved amount. I hope we wouldn’t. But construction is absurdly expensive.
The city’s bond for Locust Road is due to be fully paid off in 2030. We would probably look into structuring the debt payments to not ramp up too much until after Locust Road comes off the books. (Still, I wouldn’t count on this too much, as there are plenty of projects that need doing in town.)
If the referendum passes and you live in Decorah, your taxes will go up.
I serve many people whose budgets have little or no flexibility. I lie awake at night thinking about it. Higher property taxes mean higher housing costs and higher prices at local businesses. It can mean good people forced to find somewhere else to live.
I also serve a community that I believe wants well-loved city services (like the fire department) to be sustained at current levels. Even adjusted for inflation, it is extremely expensive to operate a city these days compared to 10, 25, and 50 years ago.
And Decorah is in a state that makes it more and more expensive for cities to do their work every year. The Iowa Legislature regularly coopts city revenues, issues unfunded local tax exemptions, restricts housing flexibility, and creates endless unfunded mandates. Maybe I should write more about it some day. But a lot of well-meaning people are mad at the wrong elected officials about their local tax bill.
Why is the city considering this project with so much else underway? The community can only afford so much at once!
Here are big city projects currently underway:
A $13 million high speed fiber project
A new sports and recreation park
Full reconstruction of the Heivly corridor
An 8-figure wastewater treatment plant upgrade
I’m probably forgetting something.
The fiber buildout is paid for by voluntary user fees. The sports park has very few property tax dollars in the funding mix. The Heivly corridor should have been built more affordably, but much street funding comes from user fees and road taxes. The wastewater plant is funded by user fees, which are commensurate with or lower than surrounding communities.
I guess what I’m saying is that we do have a lot of things going on. I actually think that is a HUGE credit to our staff and city officials. We have worked our butts off accomplishing or getting close to accomplishing several projects that have been delayed for years and years. And most of the big city projects are funded in a way that won’t result in a direct tax increase the way passing this referendum would.
There are also other big public projects underway in town. The most noteworthy is the new elementary school/competition gymnasium. Paying for it will be on your tax bill for many years. The City cannot wait until after that building is paid off to provide our fire department and the other affected city services with facilities adequate to their work. Whether this referendum passes, we will need to figure something out. And it will cost.
Why not have a referendum for just the fire department?
Between two-thirds and three-fourths of bond revenues will be spent on the fire station. That is the main cost-driver here.
Providing the fire station with facilities that can support its current operations would cost around $12.5 million if we partly remodel or $13.5 million if we build new.
But anything that satisfactorily addresses the issues with the fire station will require finding new accommodations for the other users of the building to support programming at its current levels.
New construction of the non fire department spaces is estimated at $3.4 million (before safety margins and contingencies). Yes, that’s a lot. Which is why I hope to identify a more affordable alternative to new construction.
But we need to do something. Cities need a place to hold public meetings. Cities need office space for the people who manage the finances and answer the phones and run the projects and supervise the staff and equip the officials for decision-making. Our City has a strong Parks and Recreation department and it needs office space too.
Why should we trust the City Council with the flexibility this referendum allows?
Well, we’re not really talking about that many options here. If the referendum passes we will build new fire station facilities and figure out the best solution we can for other needed office space.
We already make a lot of decisions for taxpayers. And I know lots of folks like to hate on their local elected officials, but we’re your neighbors. We pay taxes too. I don’t think any of my colleagues on Council are doing this for the wrong reasons. We’re certainly not doing it for a hundred bucks a month.
For various reasons, my colleagues have been extremely consistent in saying that - if the referendum passes - the city should pursue the most affordable path that supports city services at the current levels. We all hope that will mean spending less than $18.88 million.
At the same time, if you vote Yes you should know that the city spending the entire amount is possible, maybe even likely. There are many experts whose job it is to convince city councils to spend money. And it’s would be hard to say No to better facilities for our staff and volunteers if we have the flexibility to say Yes.
I don’t like the Decorah City Council and think voting against this will stick it to them. Will it?
If the voters vote against the referendum it will affect me exactly the same way it affects other residents. This is our shared decision to make together. It will affect the whole community.
If you want to hurt me, make fun of my golf skills.
Are there other bad reasons to vote No?
You don’t want any services cut, but just want it to be way cheaper. (Trust me, I tried this, even when it was very, very unpopular.)
You wish things were done differently thirty or sixty years ago so that we weren’t faced with such a depreciated building.
See Facebook comments for more ideas.
Are there there any good reasons to consider voting No?
Several I can think of:
You consider the flood-risk downsides of the current site to be so significant that you cannot support new investment there.
You don’t trust the Council with the flexibility to pick from among a few different options for currently-needed office space.
You want to vote on a more definitive plan next year, and are okay risking higher construction costs and interest rates.
You read what I wrote about the unfair funding model of our fire department and think city taxpayers can no longer afford to participate in this arrangement as it currently exists.
You don’t think sustaining city services at their current levels is worth what it costs in 2025 and you want the Council to consider significant but unpopular and consequential service-cuts, like:
A work-from-home city administration
Close some parks or reduce recreational services
Different staffing models
A sheet-metal pole-barn fire station
Not storing all the firefighting equipment in one location
If you do vote No, I encourage you to email your city officials with what, specifically, you want the city to do differently if that is what is motivating your No vote.
What will happen next if there’s a No result?
City leaders will get back to work in December. A big part of our work will be trying to figure out what the voters were trying to say. Everyone will be tempted to interpret the result as confirming their own beliefs.
I suspect we will have another referendum on the ballot next November. It will probably reflect our efforts to do “less with less”. Nobody will like all the changes. We will probably get less value for the money we do spend because of price increases in the meantime, but we will probably spend less than we would if the referendum passed this year, which would save taxpayers money.
What if there’s a Yes result?
We’ll try to quickly hone in on the plan that reflects what we believe is best for the city.
My current instinct is to advocate for the plan that keeps the east side of the current structure and builds a new apparatus bay for the fire department. Others will argue it’s worth the extra million dollars that all new construction would cost. I do intend to push for the inclusion of a small gym for our firefighters, which I think would help with recruitment, training, and team-building.
I still hope we can find a more affordable adequate alternative to new construction for the other needed office space.
How will you vote?
My vote doesn’t matter any more than anyone else’s. I love that — democracy is great! This is our decision, and I think it’s important that prospective voters educate themselves on the issue and make their best decision. If you’ve read this far, I am sincerely grateful for your participation in our city’s governance. And please know that I respect your vote, whatever it is.
I will vote in support of the referendum.
Final Thoughts
Regardless of whether the referendum passes or fails, I will continue to fight like hell for downward pressure on city spending via more abundant housing, more fiscally responsible and safer streets, fairer cost-sharing, and smarter development patterns.
I am sincerely grateful to the many folks who have supported me in writing this series. People joining the conversation along the way has been a big encouragement. My wife, Lisa, has been an exceptional editor and so much more.
This project has been a lot of additional work, but it has helped me clarify my own thinking. I hope it’s done the same for you.
I appreciate you for reading.
I especially appreciate you if you share this with others.
Warmly,
-sz