Concrete medians installed by the City of Nevada, Iowa for their Quiet Zone in 2008. Photo courtesy of Walt MacDonald.

Fairfield City Council has hired a Quiet Zone specialist Andrew Mielke of SRF Consulting using funds donated by the Fairfield Train Safety and Quiet Zone Committee. His job is to advise the City Council on how to implement their resolution of November 2007 to create a Railroad Quiet Zone for Fairfield. The debate has moved on from the sometimes bitter divisions of the past over whether Fairfield should have a Quiet Zone. A recent poll on the Fairfield Iowa Facebook page showed 91% were in favor of Quiet Zone, and dissenting comments are almost never seen in the Facebook discussions or in the comments on the three Quiet Zone articles published on Fairfield Voice this year.

Public discussion now centers on what configuration of Quiet Zone is best for Fairfield, and how much it will cost. According to the Federal Railroads Administration website there are now 385 Railroad Quiet Zones in the US. Fairfield may be the first in the US created with no taxpayer funds and be entirely funded from private donations.

In the public meeting at the Fairfield Library last Sunday night, Mr. Mielke said the minimum configuration to qualify for Quiet Zone for Fairfield would involve changes to only 4 out of the present 8 crossings. This would satisfy the Federal Railroad Administration, which requires the accident risk levels to be reduced to less than the present levels with the horns sounding. He suggested the four changes could be closing 3rd St crossing; installing Supplemental Safety Measures on 2 other Streets; and closing or upgrading one other street. He recommended including 23rd St among the streets to receive safety upgrades since this crossing currently has the highest risk level of the 8 crossings in Fairfield. This is a similar solution as a city in New Jersey he’s currently working which has elected to upgrade only 6 of their total 12 crossings to create a Quiet Zone for the city.

At the other end of the scale, Mr. Mielke said, is Burlington, Iowa, which last year upgraded 6 1/2 out of their 10 crossings. They closed 2 crossings, left one unimproved and installed medians on just one side of one other crossing.

Of the various safety upgrades possible on the crossings, only one is commonly used. This involves placing a concrete median down the center of the street for 60 to 100 feet in front of each railroad crossing gate. This prevents traffic from going around the gate, which is a major cause of accidents. Although cheaper plastic wands are possible as well, these have had problems with vandalism and snowploughs. A former City Council member of Nevada Iowa, Walt MacDonald said in 2008 they installed 920 lineal feet of concrete medians (pictured above) on five crossings for a total cost $28,350, plus around $10,000 for signs and street repairs. This comes out to a total cost of under $8,000 per crossing.

The biggest accident risk reduction for the Quiet Zone is achieved by reducing the number of crossings by closing less used ones. This is why BNSF and the Iowa DoT give cash incentives to close crossings. The Fairfield Quiet Zone committee made a proposal to the City’s Transport and Safety Committee in March in which they reported that these cash grants would be $50,000 total per crossing. Andrew Mielke cautions that deals vary in each case. “The City could expect to receive at least $40,000 per crossing closing,” he said.

In 2004 the Federal Railroads Administration gave two options to the City of Fairfield to establish a Quiet Zone. Both of these options involved closing 3rd and Court St crossings. While no one has come out publicly against closing 3rd St, opinions are more divided on Court St. This has become an issue since the most recent estimates presented to the City by the Quiet Zone Committee in March indicate that Court Street is the most expensive to upgrade due to the poor condition of the road which would need to be resurfaced prior to installing medians. The total cost is estimated at $67,040. So this together with the cash incentives provided by BNSF and Iowa DoT would likely save the City over $100,000 if Court St crossing were closed. This figure could be less if the City bore some of the cost of resurfacing Court Street prior to installing medians.

At Sunday’s public meeting one Court Street resident, Peter Dollive, asked about closing Court Street. Michael Halley, the Council member tasked with heading up the Quiet Zone project responded that his enquiries with fellow Council members indicated the City would not approve this. Mr. Dollive questioned this. “If the residents on Court Street want the street closed, why would anyone want to keep it open?” he asked.

One reason often cited to keep Court Street open is that closing it would inconvenience people traveling to the square by car, on foot or by bicycle. But evidently not for the residents of Court St – so far no resident of Court St has objected to the idea of closing the crossing and many have spoken out in favor.

Since Court St is a dead end on the north end it’s hard to make the case that it is more convenient for people traveling to the city from places other the street itself. To test this, I tried driving to the Fairfield Arts and Convention Center by three different routes from the intersection of B and Kirkwood Sts. Using B St came out quickest at 1 minute 25 seconds. Court St was 6 seconds slower, and Main St came in at 20 seconds slower. Obviously it depends on traffic conditions, but since B St has a better road surface and has parking only one side of the street, it’s likely to be the fastest route most of the time.

Some say business owners around the square feel closing Court Street would inconvenience their customers. Pam and Wayne Slowick, owners of one of the larger retail businesses on Court Street disagree. “We don’t think it will have any impact at all on Thymely Solutions traffic. We think our customers drive up B and Main to cross over to Court Street,” they said.

Closing Court St achieves a significant risk reduction for the Quiet Zone as well as saving donors and the City the cost of upgrading the street. However, as Mr. Mielke points out, it is still an option to not select Court St for one of the streets to be upgraded.

Mr. Mielke expects to have a report with his recommendations ready for the City Council within a month.

As I savor my coffee this morning I also savor victory. But not for long, as we’ve got a lot of work to do to prove to the community that recent successes at the FACC are not a fluke. Rather, part of a well laid out plan and a humble and dynamic leader in Rustin Lippincott.

Just after 8pm last night (May 4th), a room full of civic and business leaders, FACC donors and board, and our incredible group of supporters, watched as Rustin and board president Bob Moore entered the building smiling ear to ear with the news that the votes were in, and that we had won convincingly.

Here is the official statement from the FACC:

The Fairfield Arts and Convention Center is pleased to announce that on  Tuesday, the Fairfield voters approved a referendum to allocate 12.5% of the City of Fairfield’s Local Option Sales Tax revenues to purchase the Fairfield Arts and Convention Center and place its ownership in the hands of the city.

The Center can now retire its debt and concentrate on increasing its services to the community. The unofficial vote tally was 1607 yes votes and 807 no votes.

“On behalf of the Fairfield Arts and Convention Center Board of Directors, staff and volunteers, we say thank you to the many Fairfield voters who turned out today to voice their affirmative opinion on the viability of the purchase and operating plan we are now able to implement with gusto,” said Rustin Lippincott, the Center’s Executive Director.  “We regard the confidence that this community’s residents have instilled in the Fairfield Arts & Convention Center today with great humility and awe and with a profound sense of anticipation and exuberance,” he added.  “We are tremendously grateful for the outcome and celebrate tonight, but we awake tomorrow faced with the accountability which we now have to the people of the City of Fairfield.  I assure you that the Fairfield Arts & Convention Center accepts this investment from the people of Fairfield mindful of the responsibilities inherent in it and resolved to deliver diverse programming with affordable prices for years to come. ”

In the coming days, the Center’s Board of Directors will be meeting with the representatives from the City of Fairfield and Iowa State Bank to complete the purchase and establish the details for the lease and operating agreement.

“I want to personally thank the Center’s Board of Directors, the donors who made the private fundraising efforts possible and the countless supporters who helped crystallize and deploy our message and purpose,” said Lippincott.

And I would like to humbly thank our supporters, those of you who rose to the occasion to support something you believe in. Whether it was e-mailing, Facebooking, handing out flyers with kid in tow, or simply recommending to a friend that they vote “yes”, I can’t tell you how much that support meant to me personally and, of course, to the FACC as a whole.

As I’ve maintained all along, there is still work to be done in order to keep the FACC as a sustainable operation. But now, energized with support, we’re truly in the best position for success. And for that, I thank you Fairfield.

Well, the coffee is almost gone, so I will savor those last drops of victory and get back to work.

PS – Photos are courtesy of our good friend, pianist and photographer extraordinaire – Werner Elmker. See you at the Center!

This week I find myself at odds with some of my friends and acquaintances on the issue of whether the public should purchase the FACC and rescue it from it’s current financial crisis. People that know me are aware that I don’t normally align along the usual party lines across all issues, however on this issue I seem to have made some friends and acquaintances angry with me. In response to my opposition to the FACC bailout; I’ve been accused of spreading disinformation, not knowing the facts, being irresponsible and one friend in particular has accused me of “being unfair to our community” in my role as one of the editors of Fairfield Voice.

The irony in all this is I was not going to post my own opinion piece on the issue, but now that I’ve had a taste of the Pro FACC steamroller I feel compelled to raise a voice on this issue that I feel needs to be heard rather than flattened.

Vote NO And Enact Plan B

A city councilman recently accused me of spreading disinformation because I have been vocal about my opinion that we should vote NO and therefore pressure private parties to purchase the FACC. Let me make my logic clear so that this council member (and other FACC bailout supporters) will stop spreading misinformation about my opinion.

The FACC board continues to paint this picture that they are a new management team with new direction and that the FACC is a great asset and investment. I will assume this is true — people I know and respect are involved with the FACC. Assuming that the FACC is being run by skilled professionals, then we can assume they have a plan B. It would be irresponsible not to have a backup plan.

What is plan B? I speculate that it’s a private party or parties covering the debt and assuming the risk. And of course no one knows about plan B because if it was made public, you’d never have a chance of getting the tax payers to foot the bill.

What if I’m wrong — what if the vote fails on May 4th and plan B never materializes? Well then my answer is that we, the public, just saved ourselves from a bad investment.

It’s easy for thousands of people to vote on the allocation of tax revenue they don’t have to immediately pull out of their pockets — and vote yes on spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an ailing business because all their friends say it’s a good idea. But, that doesn’t mean it’s a great investment. Now if the private money in this town (and there’s a lot of it in this town), invests in the FACC, then that’s telling. That means someone who has made a lot of money, or a group of people who have confidence in the future of the business, thinks the FACC is in the right direction.

So, vote NO. Let’s see what plan B is. Let’s see if anyone else will assume the risk and validate that the FACC is really a worthy investment. If a private party assumes the role of rescuer, then we all win. If there is no plan B, if no one steps up . . . then we know that the FACC is probably not the sustainable business model we’re being sold. And everyone in the community can rethink the proposal, and the FACC will be forced to come with a new plan. I reject this ticking time bomb scenario that if we all don’t vote yes now, then a black hole appears where the FACC currently sits and “Fairfield’s reputation will be damaged.”

Which brings me to:

You’re Either With The FACC Or Ignorant

I’m not sure if it’s calculated or not, but the FACC has made great attempts to control the current debate by staking claim to “the facts”. That’s just about all you hear when you voice an opinion they don’t like. You’re told to go to their website and get the facts. Your opinion doesn’t count until you go get their facts, at which point I guess you will suddenly agree with their position and then you too can own the facts.

It’s patronizing.

The FACC can speculate laundry lists of scenarios if the you vote NO, but if you speculate a scenario they don’t like . . . time to go to their website and get the facts!

The Pro FACC Brigade also wants you to think that once you understand all their facts, you are logically bound to conclude that your tax dollars should fund them. They don’t recognize opinions opposing the plan as anything but uneducated until you’ve either “talked to Rustin” or gone to the website and read “the facts”.

This past week I read dozens of Facebook posts and blog comments that were in support of the FACC ballot measure. However when I posted my opinion against the ballot measure, I was told to stop “encouraging people to vote no” until I talked to members of the FACC board (to get the facts I’m sure).

It works like this:

* Update your Facebook status in support of funding the FACC – you’re simply expressing an educated opinion.
* Update your Facebook status in support of NOT funding the FACC – you’re “spreading disinformation” and “encouraging people to vote no” (those quotes are from real responses I got on Facebook), and of course you need to “get the facts”.

If this wasn’t about giving up hundreds of thousands of dollars of our tax revenue, it would be comical. But this isn’t a joke – it’s a red flag. Let’s ignore for a moment that I have any other concerns over the FACC bailout. When one side tries to assume this type of righteous posture, it only polarizes the community more, and in my opinion is a sign that you should reconsider participation in that posture. In other words, if you’re standing for and promoting the FACC deal, step back for a minute and consider why you’ve come to that opinion. Is it fear? Is it because you’re a donor? Is it because everyone in your political alignment is doing it?

The Most Important Fact: The FACC Does Not Have All The Facts

This is another reason why we need to vote NO and put pressure on FACC to find private investment, corporate sponsorship or other options. Because I can guarantee you – private money would not vote yes on this deal as it exists today. Why? Because neither FACC board members nor City Council members are clear on the terms of the deal. Isn’t that crazy?!

We’re being pressured to vote yes, and hand over hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax revenue, yet the terms of the deal are to be negotiated AFTER THE VOTE. In an email on April 27th, Bob Moore (FACC Board Member) describes the terms of the lease being proposed if the City assumes ownership:

We have not worked out the terms of the lease with the City relative to specific term, lease amount (other than it will be a nominal amount for some period of time). It’s also possible that if the FACC is ever able to generate positive cash flow without donations, the city may want some sort of additional compensation. No specific terms have been negotiated.

Are you kidding me? No offense to Bob Moore whom I respect a great deal, but it is absolutely irresponsible for the City Council and the FACC board to allow this measure to go up for election without these terms ironed out and presented to the public. This type of negligence with tax dollars offends me and it should offend you!

This IS A BAILOUT

When you see someone giving their support for the FACC on Facebook or in front of the City Council, note down their name, and then go here and view the list of the people who have donated/invested in the FACC. So far I’ve found a match every-time with one exception. It’s not surprising they are encouraging you to vote yes in order to secure their investment with your tax dollars.

You can call this ballot measure whatever you like, but at the end of the day, it is a bailout. And I don’t blame donors for wanting to take the easy road and have other tax payers help bailout their investment. But it’s the wrong choice. You absolutely need to vote down this measure and force the City, the FACC, the donors and the community to rethink the deal. I will gladly support the right deal, but this isn’t it.

As the May 4 vote on whether or not to use public funds for the FACC looms, I’ve come up with some ideas and I also have a few questions. Firstly, let me say that I have been to quite a few events at the Sondheim and have enjoyed most of them. And let me also say that I fully believe in supporting the FACC. Having said that, I believe it would be a serious mistake to use public funds for that support, and here is why.

To start with, there are any number of other worthy not-for-profit organizations here in Fairfield. Why should the FACC get public support when many of the others don’t? And of the ones that do, most are either free to the public or else charge a nominal fee–hardly the case with the FACC. Also, since many of the events are out of the price range of a good number of Fairfield residents, they would be paying for something that they couldn’t participate in–that doesn’t sound like anything that’s going to create much goodwill. And who is to say that this will be the only time we as taxpayers are going to be asked to bail out the FACC? And if the community is going to be funding the FACC, where is the opportunity for community involvement? I haven’t sensed much at all, in the nearly 3 years the FACC has been in existence.

Lastly, reasonably-priced events/fundraisers showcasing local talent–such as the Woodstock and Motown shows, several of which sold out–have proven that when the show is of interest and the price is right, people will come–in droves. Relying on fund-raisers and other private donations would mean that the people who enjoy the events at the FACC would get their chance to support it, while the members of the community who aren’t as interested wouldn’t have to; a win for everyone.

Which brings me to 3 things that I feel drag down many of the events at the Sondheim, all of which would be easy to change. Firstly, ticket prices of $40-50 in a town the size of Fairfield, especially during an economic downturn, are not realistic. Secondly, I’m not sure I understand why there is a fairly consistent lack of printed programs for many of the events. Trivial? Perhaps. But if someone is taking the time and trouble to come to an event, it seems that getting a program is not too much to ask. And lastly, the long list of announcements at the beginning of most of the plays is exhausting, to put it mildly. I’ve been to many theaters, from huge auditoriums to small art houses, and I’ve never seen that anywhere else. A few minutes at the beginning? Maybe. But 15-20 minutes? And yes, on several occasions they have gone on that long. Who’s going to remember any of it? It would make a lot more sense to put the announcements in the programs. Then again, if there aren’t enough programs…

Now about the Expo Hall, which seems to have turned into nothing less than a huge albatross, dragging down the rest of the FACC. It must cost a fortune to maintain, it’s used a lot less than the Sondheim, many of the groups that exhibit there were already coming to Fairfield before it was built and hopefully would continue coming, and lastly, let’s face it–it’s an eyesore, with the look and feel of a deserted warehouse, even when there’s people in it. Originally I understand it was supposed to be a venue for showing livestock–livestock, in the middle of the downtown area, with all of its shops, restaurants, and the courthouse across the street. Whoever thought up that brilliant idea, it doesn’t exactly seem to have panned out, and thank goodness.

So here is another idea: get rid of the Expo Hall, and convert the space into something that would enhance the rest of the center as well as the community, rather than being a drain on both. A parking lot would fit the bill nicely–it would require far less upkeep, it would create much-needed parking, and it would get rid of a big, unsightly building that seems more people walk around than walk into. Let’s admit we made a miscalculation with the Expo Hall and move on. If we as a community could agree to focus on the Sondheim and do all we can to save that, with some creative thinking the funding will hopefully come, as these last couple of fundraisers have shown. Otherwise, I believe using public funds to pay for a private venue is a mistake we will come to regret, and it’s a mistake I hope we won’t make.

1.  Voting “yes” will not raise your taxes. Many years ago, we voted as a community for a one penny per dollar sales tax known as a local option sales tax.  Over the years, we’ve used that extra penny per dollar of sales tax (paid by us and every visitor to our community) for many different things.  We built the new law enforcement center.  We financed the purchase and clearing of half the block where the Center is located.  The City is now dedicating 50% to street improvements, 25% to sewer repair and 25% for “community betterment”.

This “community betterment” fund is a segregated portion of the sales tax revenue that gives the city significant discretion in how it can be spent.  The proposal on May 4 reallocates half of the community betterment portion of the revenue, 12.5%, to the purchase of the Center for 8-9 years (the period of time the current version of the local option sales tax continues before it expires).  The other 12.5% will remain available for plugging holes in the city budget and for general community betterment. Will there be less to plug the holes and give to deserving community groups with legitimate needs?  Yes.  Will we survive?  Absolutely.  The money from our community betterment fund that is used for deserving local groups is frosting on the cake.  If you vote “yes” for the Center, there will still be “frosting”; we’ll just have to spread it a little thinner for a short period of time. Money for our basic city services will not decrease. And voting “yes” will not cost you a penny more in tax.

2.   It is an incredibly important asset to Fairfield. The cultural value of the Center to our town is immeasurable.  If you’ve been to the Center for an event, you can’t help but feel proud.  I was born and raised here.  I think my cousins around the state used to get really sick of me, as a kid, bragging about Fairfield.  I thought it was the best town in the state then, and I feel the same way about it now.  If you enjoy a good show, whether it’s drama, comedy, country, rock, or whatever, the Center can provide it.  The line-up of entertainment the Center now provides is enviable by Des Moines standards.  In the short time it’s been open, I already feel “at home” when I’m there.  It’s a place to gather as a community to relax, to laugh, to enjoy each other’s company, and maybe get to know each other a little better.

Some complain that ticket prices are too high.  The management is sensitive to that and has done its best to walk that fine line of providing the best entertainment possible at the best price.  And there have been, and will continue to be, some very fine free events.  With continued financial support, the growth of an endowment fund, the sale of season tickets, and corporate sponsorships, ticket prices should moderate more in the future.

Some complain that the City will be saddled with all of the expenses of owning the Center.  That’s not the plan. The City will lease the Center to the Fairfield Arts and Convention Center, a non-profit corporation, for basically nothing initially, but with the agreement that they pay all maintenance, utilities, insurance, etc.  The City pays nothing.

Some, for reasons I’ll probably never understand, just don’t like the Center.  They claim they will never step inside the place.  But even if you never intend to step in the door and enjoy the Center, it is still in your best interests to vote yes on May 4.  The Center draws people from out of town to its fine events.  When those people buy tickets to those events, and buy gas, and stay in our hotels, and eat meals at our restaurants, and shop in our stores, they are not only stimulating our local economy, THEY ARE PAYING SALES TAX THAT INCREASES THE CITY LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX REVENUE.  THAT’S MORE MONEY FOR OUR STREETS, SEWERS AND COMMUNITY BETTERMENT!  Our local option sales tax revenue has increased 40% over the last several years. That’s happening because the Center (as well as other community cultural events) is drawing people to Fairfield to spend money.  If the Center closes, our sales tax revenues will drop.  If the Center stays open, our sales tax revenue will continue to grow.  Some people are concerned about what it may cost the city in the future to keep the Center open.  I assure you, the bigger economic concern to all of us is what it will cost the city in the future if it closes.  And voting “yes” will not cost you a penny more.

3.  It has a viable plan for financial sustainability. The Center initially struggled financially.  It was a new and unique venture.  Its planners were visionary.  They planned, and they researched, and they studied. An exciting idea of making the Center a “mecca” for musical theatre was conceived.   And they thought the Center could sustain itself by its own revenues.  And they were wrong.

What the Center has learned, and very painfully, is that it must provide the community with a broad variety of entertainment at reasonable prices.  And it must move lots of people, attending lots of different events, both in the theatre and the convention center, through its doors.

And that’s what it’s done.  Go to www.FairfieldCenterinfo.com and study what has happened at the Center in the last year.  Business and revenue has increased dramatically and responsibly.  Study the new business plan that now accepts that part of the Center’s budget will have to be raised each year through community charitable support (like every other civic center in Iowa).    Read about how they’re doing that now and will continue to do it in the future.

Is it possible they may fail?  Yes.  Is it possible I may not wake tomorrow morning?  Yes.  But I’m going to bed tonight intent on waking up and taking on tomorrow as best I can.  The Center is doing the same thing.  There’s a new attitude.  They are now succeeding.  And they are approaching everyday with a new commitment to quality and future success.  Things are now working where they didn’t when the Center first opened.  This is not the time to give up and close it down.  This is the time to pull together as a community and keep it open.  And voting “yes” won’t cost you a penny more.

4.  We need to protect our investment. Some say city government shouldn’t get involved with the civic center.  We’re already involved.  By majority public vote, we previously redirected local option sales tax revenue to purchase half of the block where the Center is located (the City already owned the other half) and demolish the existing buildings so the Center could be built.  Thus, we have already invested approximately $1.4 million into the Center.  Voting “yes” means we own the property, protect our investment, and control the ultimate destiny of the property, regardless of whether the civic center organization succeeds or fails in the future.  Voting “no” means we lose our investment and any local control over what will occupy that property in the future.

Also consider that the City is not being called upon to shoulder this responsibility alone.  To retire all long-term debt and accrued short-term payables, the Center needs $1,600,000.00.  The City will contribute $650,000.00.  Private contributions of $950,000.00, that have already been raised and are in the bank, will make up the difference.  The City will therefore receive significant private charitable support to help protect our investment.  This is a facility that cost approximately $10,000,000.00 to build.  The City has invested approximately $1.4 million so far.  For another $650,000.00 we can own it, debt-free.  Even if the Center ultimately fails, the City will own a valuable piece of property that, in all likelihood, will cover the City’s full investment.

The smart choice is to protect our investment.  And, voting “yes” won’t cost you a penny more.

To conclude, I understand we may not all agree on the Center.  I respect those whose opinions may differ from mine.  In an ideal world, we wouldn’t be voting on May 4 for the City of Fairfield to purchase the Center.  But we don’t live in an ideal world.  The right thing, and the smart thing, for Fairfield’s long-term future, is to vote yes on May 4.  And, it won’t cost you a penny more.

Fairfield Arts and Convention Center board member Mark H. Cohen and Executive Director Rustin Lippincott will host a public meeting at the FACC on Wednesday at 7 p.m.

Cohen and Lippincott will update the community on the Center’s fundraising efforts and programming, and answer any and all questions relating to the FACC public/private partnership proposal before City of Fairfield voters May 4.

The proposal calls for the City of Fairfield to raise $650,000 by bonding toward a percentage of future Local Option Sales Tax collections. The $650,000 would be met with $950,000 in donations raised by the FACC to purchase the Convention Center, place ownership of it in City of Fairfield hands and retire its debts.

The Fairfield Area Chamber of Commerce, Fairfield Economic Development Association, Fairfield Convention and Visitors Bureau, and 1st Friday’s Art Walk have all announced their endorsement of the proposal.

The FACC and its board of directors encourage everyone in the community to attend this event so they can have all of the facts before the election.

“I can’t imagine voting on such an important issue put before the community without having all of the facts” commented Lippincott. “That’s why I want to allow the voting public to have the opportunity to have their questions answered and concerns addressed.”

If attendees are interested in learning more before the event, they can visit www.FairfieldCenterInfo.com. It contains an abbreviated version of the FACC business plan, plain language explanations of what a yes or no vote will mean to the community, and many additional facts and commentary about the FACC and its impact on the community.