Monday, May 31. 2010
The Board Artistically Considered
By: Don Meyer, Manager
Form follows function.
This well known phrase has it origins in a magazine article entitled “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered.” It was written by American architect Louis H. Sullivan and published in Lippincott’s Magazine in March 1896.
Sullivan and his fellow architects were living in a time of great change. The American economy was shifting from its rural base to one of commercial interests. Offices were needed in which to conduct that business. People were moving to the cities in pursuit of work. And with the increasing demand for space to build, property values soared. The incentive to construct taller buildings within that limited space was a natural consequence of these conditions, which Sullivan and his colleagues tried to address.
Technical innovations made this possible. Improvements in steel construction techniques were part of the solution. So was the invention of the high-speed elevator, making the vertical ascent safer and far less stressful. What emerged was the modern office building, better known today as the skyscraper. Sullivan wrote that “It has come in answer to a call, for in it a new grouping of social conditions has found a habitation and a name.”
A new grouping of social conditions! Needless to say that with change, critics abounded. The easiest complaint to make was that the look of these monoliths was a departure from the more sedate classic styling of the past. Sullivan’s answer was to admonish people to look at nature (reminiscent of someone else’s call to consider the lilies of the field), to learn from its vitality and adaptability. His own conclusion was expressed in these words:
“It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things super-human, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law.”
It is an American characteristic to simplify things and Sullivan’s credo has lived on in the oft quoted statement that form follows function, the impact of the word ever being lost to posterity. But if we have managed to retain the key point of his philosophy it is because his words have found a broader application than the debate over a building’s design and construction. And this is appropriately so since Sullivan, himself, gave us liberty to do so by his use of that other phrase quoted earlier, a new grouping of social conditions.
Structures of any type, whether they are made of steel and stone or personal relationships, address peoples’ expectations. At Mid-Continent the expectations we must meet can be further categorized as those coming from museum guests, members, volunteers, donors, regulatory agencies, the media and our peers in the disciplines of preservation, education and tourism. And the structure I wish to address, in responding to the list of topics outlined in Stan Searing’s guest blog, is the composition of Mid-Continent’s board of directors.
If we apply the wisdom of Sullivan, then form can be understood as the persona of the ideal board member, which we typically reduce to the concept of qualifications since we are generally ignorant of how to evaluate the equally important attributes of character. Function is the role(s) these ideal directors are to play once selected or elected. And if form does ever follow function then my suggestion is that we, as a virtual planning group, begin the next short series of messages by defining first the function of the ideal board of directors. Then we can attempt to describe the form of the ideal director.
So please be my guests in adding your comments to this week’s message by sharing your thoughts on the function of Mid-Continent’s board. Just keep in mind that to participate requires a positive attitude for contributing constructive ideas. This is not a cheap forum for venting against anyone in leadership. Besides you would not want to say something that would disqualify you from consideration as a board candidate.
Next week I will summarize your contributions and supplement them with my own view on what is important in a functioning non-profit board.
Form follows function.
This well known phrase has it origins in a magazine article entitled “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered.” It was written by American architect Louis H. Sullivan and published in Lippincott’s Magazine in March 1896.
Sullivan and his fellow architects were living in a time of great change. The American economy was shifting from its rural base to one of commercial interests. Offices were needed in which to conduct that business. People were moving to the cities in pursuit of work. And with the increasing demand for space to build, property values soared. The incentive to construct taller buildings within that limited space was a natural consequence of these conditions, which Sullivan and his colleagues tried to address.
Technical innovations made this possible. Improvements in steel construction techniques were part of the solution. So was the invention of the high-speed elevator, making the vertical ascent safer and far less stressful. What emerged was the modern office building, better known today as the skyscraper. Sullivan wrote that “It has come in answer to a call, for in it a new grouping of social conditions has found a habitation and a name.”
A new grouping of social conditions! Needless to say that with change, critics abounded. The easiest complaint to make was that the look of these monoliths was a departure from the more sedate classic styling of the past. Sullivan’s answer was to admonish people to look at nature (reminiscent of someone else’s call to consider the lilies of the field), to learn from its vitality and adaptability. His own conclusion was expressed in these words:
“It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things super-human, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law.”
It is an American characteristic to simplify things and Sullivan’s credo has lived on in the oft quoted statement that form follows function, the impact of the word ever being lost to posterity. But if we have managed to retain the key point of his philosophy it is because his words have found a broader application than the debate over a building’s design and construction. And this is appropriately so since Sullivan, himself, gave us liberty to do so by his use of that other phrase quoted earlier, a new grouping of social conditions.
Structures of any type, whether they are made of steel and stone or personal relationships, address peoples’ expectations. At Mid-Continent the expectations we must meet can be further categorized as those coming from museum guests, members, volunteers, donors, regulatory agencies, the media and our peers in the disciplines of preservation, education and tourism. And the structure I wish to address, in responding to the list of topics outlined in Stan Searing’s guest blog, is the composition of Mid-Continent’s board of directors.
If we apply the wisdom of Sullivan, then form can be understood as the persona of the ideal board member, which we typically reduce to the concept of qualifications since we are generally ignorant of how to evaluate the equally important attributes of character. Function is the role(s) these ideal directors are to play once selected or elected. And if form does ever follow function then my suggestion is that we, as a virtual planning group, begin the next short series of messages by defining first the function of the ideal board of directors. Then we can attempt to describe the form of the ideal director.
So please be my guests in adding your comments to this week’s message by sharing your thoughts on the function of Mid-Continent’s board. Just keep in mind that to participate requires a positive attitude for contributing constructive ideas. This is not a cheap forum for venting against anyone in leadership. Besides you would not want to say something that would disqualify you from consideration as a board candidate.
Next week I will summarize your contributions and supplement them with my own view on what is important in a functioning non-profit board.
Monday, May 24. 2010
Cool, Clear Water
By: Don Meyer, Manager
My father was a Texas boy and even though my parents moved to California before I was born, the first music I recall hearing (other than hymns at my mother’s church) were the country-western songs played on my dad’s favorite radio station. The beautiful harmonies of the Sons of the Pioneers were well known to me long before those of the Beach Boys and to this day I can still recall every word they sang about tumbling tumbleweeds and cool, clear water.
Coincidentally the procurement of clear water, and in sufficient supply, has been a hot topic at Mid-Continent since the organization moved to North Freedom in 1963. Our problem is not that we face the barren waste all day long. We are saturated with water that continually flows from a well loaded with iron particulates, which must be filtered before it is distributed to the various hydrants and taps around our property.
The well’s capacity is another issue. It is suitable for domestic use only. This means it can provide drinking water to our bubbler and an adequate supply to our restrooms so we can flush toilets. What it cannot do is support a fire suppression system, which is a critical need for an organization tasked with the protection of its collection of wooden rolling stock, maps, photos and other paper documents.
When our current Board of Directors meets in June it will mark the 25th anniversary of a report commissioned by their predecessors concerning a plan to access the municipal water and sewage systems of the Village of North Freedom. The study was done by an independent firm of consulting engineers out of Stevens Point, WI. And they brought their expertise to Mid-Continent’s aid by providing options for making the connection with the Village in order to meet both our water and sewage needs.
Unfortunately we do not sing with the same harmonic precision as the musical heroes of my childhood. Therefore we are still without these services; still debating the plan for the installation and commiserating over how it is to be funded. All the while we run the risk of hazardous loss to our collection while incurring the burden of sustaining an archaic delivery system.
The engineering study is fascinating in its detail. The firm proposed two routes for both the water and sewage connections with the Village; option A being along the road onto our property and option B being along the right-of-way. They determined our need based on attendance figures, with an appreciation for the variances that occur during the course of the season. And they analyzed our expenses for pumping the holding tank that was in use at that time. Then they devised the water and sewage systems to meet the peak needs of our operation.
Construction costs were itemized for both options with plan A projected to cost $95,800 and B $130,200. They anticipated that Mid-Continent could not pay for either option in a lump sum, so they calculated the annual financing cost for a ten year note at 10% interest. And to their credit they showed the annual cost of the systems, including the fees that would be charged by the Village for water and sewage usage, net of the savings from no longer having to pay for the holding tanks to be pumped. The increase to operating expenses for the ten years following construction would have been $13,000 for option A and $18,600 for option B. And had Mid-Continued pursued either option submitted as part of that 1985 report, I might have had the honor of paying off the note when I arrived at the museum as the summer manager in 1995. Oh well (pun intended).
But while I am giving credit where credit is due in the drafting of this report, here is one more feature the consulting engineers provided our directors, the contact information for eight foundations that were known for issuing grants for capital improvements. That is certainly music to the ears of any non-profit manager who is constantly on the lookout for possible funding sources. And it should have provided us with an incentive to pursue the project since it gave us a desirable alternative to borrowing. Now for the downside.
The report notes that the Village leadership was concerned about their systems being overwhelmed by our demands should we grow. So the report contains a statement by the Department of Natural Resources attesting to the capacity of the Village’s systems as being adequate to meet our needs up to a projected annual attendance of 50,000 people. That sounds good until you read the fine print, so to speak. Our leadership made a major concession as part of this study, which is captured in one simple sentence: The museum does not plan on using municipal water for its steam engines. Yes, we do. So a new study will need to be conducted in order to understand what the demands will be for the supply of water from the Village in light of all our wants and wishes for a taste of that cool, clear water.
In 2005 President Jeff Bloohm put together a new plan in order to get a more reasonable estimate on what the cost of construction would be at current rates. He followed the basic design of option A from the 1985 report and made the necessary upgrades needed to support our steam program. The plan was then submitted to an excavating firm who returned a bid of $107,592. But please note, this new estimate was for the installation of a water line only. Running a force main attached to the Village’s sewage system was not included in their scope of work.
Three years later I used this information and took a shot of securing funding through the office of our senator who serves on the Appropriations Committee, the people who funded that Alaskan “Bridge To Nowhere.” For my purposes I added an inflation factor, plus the costs for a new engineering study and construction permits and reached a project estimate of $150,000. Needless to say, we did not get the funding. I guess our project had too much sense of purpose behind it to qualify for federal support.
Since that time others have recommended additions to the plan, such as installing the force main for the sewage system while we are trenching for the water lines. And so you have read in a previous exchange through this web log about the cost being nearer the $200,000 mark. And that is the goal Judy and Darryl Gasser have responded to in their pledge to help raise money for this project specifically for the purpose of supporting our steam program.
Twenty-five years after the original report was issued we are still at square one. We need a current engineering study in order to resume our discussions with the Village and the DNR. One bit of good news, however, is that this project is exempt from the flood plain issues our other projects must conform to since this one is underground. Sauk County’s Office of Planning and Zoning has already told us they have no jurisdiction here unless we see the need to add a physical structure above ground, like the type of pump house the railroads used in conjunction with some of their water towers.
So here is another much needed, long talked about infrastructure project lacking the funds for its implementation. In my opinion the solution to our funding problems is rooted in our organizational structure, particularly in the composition of Mid-Continent’s Board of Directors. And that will be the subject of the next few web log messages as we continue to discuss the topics raised by you in response to Stan Searing’s proposal made as a guest blogger.
I sincerely appreciate the wealth of comments received in response to last week’s message. Who knew a bridge could rival steam for generating such a high level of interest? It is my hope that we can continue to use this web log as an open forum for the expression of various – even conflicting – ideas shared in a civil, respectful fashion. You have proven we can harmonize with the best of them even if we are singing the blues.
My father was a Texas boy and even though my parents moved to California before I was born, the first music I recall hearing (other than hymns at my mother’s church) were the country-western songs played on my dad’s favorite radio station. The beautiful harmonies of the Sons of the Pioneers were well known to me long before those of the Beach Boys and to this day I can still recall every word they sang about tumbling tumbleweeds and cool, clear water.
Coincidentally the procurement of clear water, and in sufficient supply, has been a hot topic at Mid-Continent since the organization moved to North Freedom in 1963. Our problem is not that we face the barren waste all day long. We are saturated with water that continually flows from a well loaded with iron particulates, which must be filtered before it is distributed to the various hydrants and taps around our property.
The well’s capacity is another issue. It is suitable for domestic use only. This means it can provide drinking water to our bubbler and an adequate supply to our restrooms so we can flush toilets. What it cannot do is support a fire suppression system, which is a critical need for an organization tasked with the protection of its collection of wooden rolling stock, maps, photos and other paper documents.
When our current Board of Directors meets in June it will mark the 25th anniversary of a report commissioned by their predecessors concerning a plan to access the municipal water and sewage systems of the Village of North Freedom. The study was done by an independent firm of consulting engineers out of Stevens Point, WI. And they brought their expertise to Mid-Continent’s aid by providing options for making the connection with the Village in order to meet both our water and sewage needs.
Unfortunately we do not sing with the same harmonic precision as the musical heroes of my childhood. Therefore we are still without these services; still debating the plan for the installation and commiserating over how it is to be funded. All the while we run the risk of hazardous loss to our collection while incurring the burden of sustaining an archaic delivery system.
The engineering study is fascinating in its detail. The firm proposed two routes for both the water and sewage connections with the Village; option A being along the road onto our property and option B being along the right-of-way. They determined our need based on attendance figures, with an appreciation for the variances that occur during the course of the season. And they analyzed our expenses for pumping the holding tank that was in use at that time. Then they devised the water and sewage systems to meet the peak needs of our operation.
Construction costs were itemized for both options with plan A projected to cost $95,800 and B $130,200. They anticipated that Mid-Continent could not pay for either option in a lump sum, so they calculated the annual financing cost for a ten year note at 10% interest. And to their credit they showed the annual cost of the systems, including the fees that would be charged by the Village for water and sewage usage, net of the savings from no longer having to pay for the holding tanks to be pumped. The increase to operating expenses for the ten years following construction would have been $13,000 for option A and $18,600 for option B. And had Mid-Continued pursued either option submitted as part of that 1985 report, I might have had the honor of paying off the note when I arrived at the museum as the summer manager in 1995. Oh well (pun intended).
But while I am giving credit where credit is due in the drafting of this report, here is one more feature the consulting engineers provided our directors, the contact information for eight foundations that were known for issuing grants for capital improvements. That is certainly music to the ears of any non-profit manager who is constantly on the lookout for possible funding sources. And it should have provided us with an incentive to pursue the project since it gave us a desirable alternative to borrowing. Now for the downside.
The report notes that the Village leadership was concerned about their systems being overwhelmed by our demands should we grow. So the report contains a statement by the Department of Natural Resources attesting to the capacity of the Village’s systems as being adequate to meet our needs up to a projected annual attendance of 50,000 people. That sounds good until you read the fine print, so to speak. Our leadership made a major concession as part of this study, which is captured in one simple sentence: The museum does not plan on using municipal water for its steam engines. Yes, we do. So a new study will need to be conducted in order to understand what the demands will be for the supply of water from the Village in light of all our wants and wishes for a taste of that cool, clear water.
In 2005 President Jeff Bloohm put together a new plan in order to get a more reasonable estimate on what the cost of construction would be at current rates. He followed the basic design of option A from the 1985 report and made the necessary upgrades needed to support our steam program. The plan was then submitted to an excavating firm who returned a bid of $107,592. But please note, this new estimate was for the installation of a water line only. Running a force main attached to the Village’s sewage system was not included in their scope of work.
Three years later I used this information and took a shot of securing funding through the office of our senator who serves on the Appropriations Committee, the people who funded that Alaskan “Bridge To Nowhere.” For my purposes I added an inflation factor, plus the costs for a new engineering study and construction permits and reached a project estimate of $150,000. Needless to say, we did not get the funding. I guess our project had too much sense of purpose behind it to qualify for federal support.
Since that time others have recommended additions to the plan, such as installing the force main for the sewage system while we are trenching for the water lines. And so you have read in a previous exchange through this web log about the cost being nearer the $200,000 mark. And that is the goal Judy and Darryl Gasser have responded to in their pledge to help raise money for this project specifically for the purpose of supporting our steam program.
Twenty-five years after the original report was issued we are still at square one. We need a current engineering study in order to resume our discussions with the Village and the DNR. One bit of good news, however, is that this project is exempt from the flood plain issues our other projects must conform to since this one is underground. Sauk County’s Office of Planning and Zoning has already told us they have no jurisdiction here unless we see the need to add a physical structure above ground, like the type of pump house the railroads used in conjunction with some of their water towers.
So here is another much needed, long talked about infrastructure project lacking the funds for its implementation. In my opinion the solution to our funding problems is rooted in our organizational structure, particularly in the composition of Mid-Continent’s Board of Directors. And that will be the subject of the next few web log messages as we continue to discuss the topics raised by you in response to Stan Searing’s proposal made as a guest blogger.
I sincerely appreciate the wealth of comments received in response to last week’s message. Who knew a bridge could rival steam for generating such a high level of interest? It is my hope that we can continue to use this web log as an open forum for the expression of various – even conflicting – ideas shared in a civil, respectful fashion. You have proven we can harmonize with the best of them even if we are singing the blues.
Monday, May 17. 2010
Beautiful In Itself
By: Don Meyer, Manager
Bridges easily lend themselves to a sense of progress and future development. In popular images we say that we bridge great distances, the gaps in broken relationships, and even troubled waters. Bridges make for great photo opportunities when supporting the weight of a passing train even though that opportunity might have been staged as a photo run-by for a group of eager rail fans.
When confronted with the technical aspects and high costs of construction or repair, bridges become a little more intimidating but no less attractive. They speak of strength and determination and allow us to stake a claim as to our permanence as an operation.
Bridges are far less glamorous than the museum’s other assets such as historic depots, steam locomotives and wooden coaches. As such they attract far less attention when it comes to making a substantial investment in their future viability. They lack the type of ornamentation we like to manipulate such as throttles and injectors. And the beauty of their craftsmanship is something apart from the elegance of wood paneling or plush fabric on cushioned seats.
Still, it might be best if we took our cue from an editorial which appeared in the May 24, 1883 issue of Harper’s Weekly, commemorating the completion of the Brooklyn Bridge: It so happens that the work which is likely to be our most durable monument, and to convey some knowledge of us to the most remote posterity, is a work of bare utility; not a shrine, not a fortress, not a palace, but a bridge.
For this is where we find ourselves today. With all the talk about steam versus wooden coach restoration when it comes to the competition for the allocation of money, the evidence of our commitment to the museum’s future is more likely to be found in those mundane elements we call infrastructure; our bridges spanning the Baraboo River and Seeley Creek being its most visible components.
Both bridges were in sad shape before the flood. In fact the damage inflicted on them in 2008 was minor compared to the years of deterioration that occurred as part of their normal useful life. Like our steam locomotives and other operating equipment, we have merely patched them in order to keep them in service as long as possible, fulfilling the time-honored dictum that the trains must run.
My own bias causes me to focus more on the work needed to return the Baraboo River Bridge to its full operating capacity. This may reflect my preoccupation with the higher estimated cost for this work compared to that of Seeley Creek. But both bridges are essential to our safe and efficient operation at North Freedom, so I, for one, will have to play some catch-up when it comes to understanding the scope of the work needed to repair the bridge across Seeley Creek while I continue to press for FEMA’s help in funding the repairs that meet all of our needs.
The initial step taken just this past week was to contract for soil borings to be done at both locations. What this did for us was to help identify the soil conditions on which these bridges rest. The distance to bedrock at Seeley Creek was proven to be 140 feet, while at the Baraboo River it is a mere 25 feet.
I rely exclusively on the knowledge and skill of our Roadmaster, Life member Dave Bierman, when it comes to assembling the respective repair plans for both bridges. And now armed with this additional information, I believe he can finalize those plans which can then be distributed to prospective contractors as we seek bids to do the work. Then we will know how much money needs to be raised in order to reach our goal.
The one number that has been discussed, even before the flood, was Dave’s estimate of $850,000 to repair the Baraboo River Bridge. Some people feel that is way too high and reflects Dave’s personal interest in having the Cadillac version of bridges. But since I have already taken some heat for accepting the $460,000 estimate to replace the depot platform, plus other sundry items, it should come as no surprise when I say I would prefer paying to drive a Cadillac as opposed to a now defunct Rambler.
We all know, or ought to know, that once the rail fans have taken their photos and continued on to their next destination, the bridge remains. To insure that it is there the next time we or our successors need it requires a top-dollar commitment in spite of the current economic conditions or competition from other projects. Just as we pay without question for the special care needed by an aging loved one, these aging structures need the same level of care and commitment.
Hopefully we can aspire to the same mindset expressed by the Scientific American magazine when it shared its views about the 1883 opening of that bridge back east when they wrote And yet the bridge is beautiful in itself. To this sentiment I would add a maxim which I learned in my college Greek class that a thing of beauty is a joy forever.
Our bridges may not be as grand in their construction as the Brooklyn Bridge, but they serve just as noble a purpose, the safe passage of people and equipment.
Next week I’ll conclude this part of the series inaugurated by our Educator, Stan Searing, with a message about our plans to tap into the Village of North Freedom’s water system
Bridges easily lend themselves to a sense of progress and future development. In popular images we say that we bridge great distances, the gaps in broken relationships, and even troubled waters. Bridges make for great photo opportunities when supporting the weight of a passing train even though that opportunity might have been staged as a photo run-by for a group of eager rail fans.
When confronted with the technical aspects and high costs of construction or repair, bridges become a little more intimidating but no less attractive. They speak of strength and determination and allow us to stake a claim as to our permanence as an operation.
Bridges are far less glamorous than the museum’s other assets such as historic depots, steam locomotives and wooden coaches. As such they attract far less attention when it comes to making a substantial investment in their future viability. They lack the type of ornamentation we like to manipulate such as throttles and injectors. And the beauty of their craftsmanship is something apart from the elegance of wood paneling or plush fabric on cushioned seats.
Still, it might be best if we took our cue from an editorial which appeared in the May 24, 1883 issue of Harper’s Weekly, commemorating the completion of the Brooklyn Bridge: It so happens that the work which is likely to be our most durable monument, and to convey some knowledge of us to the most remote posterity, is a work of bare utility; not a shrine, not a fortress, not a palace, but a bridge.
For this is where we find ourselves today. With all the talk about steam versus wooden coach restoration when it comes to the competition for the allocation of money, the evidence of our commitment to the museum’s future is more likely to be found in those mundane elements we call infrastructure; our bridges spanning the Baraboo River and Seeley Creek being its most visible components.
Both bridges were in sad shape before the flood. In fact the damage inflicted on them in 2008 was minor compared to the years of deterioration that occurred as part of their normal useful life. Like our steam locomotives and other operating equipment, we have merely patched them in order to keep them in service as long as possible, fulfilling the time-honored dictum that the trains must run.
My own bias causes me to focus more on the work needed to return the Baraboo River Bridge to its full operating capacity. This may reflect my preoccupation with the higher estimated cost for this work compared to that of Seeley Creek. But both bridges are essential to our safe and efficient operation at North Freedom, so I, for one, will have to play some catch-up when it comes to understanding the scope of the work needed to repair the bridge across Seeley Creek while I continue to press for FEMA’s help in funding the repairs that meet all of our needs.
The initial step taken just this past week was to contract for soil borings to be done at both locations. What this did for us was to help identify the soil conditions on which these bridges rest. The distance to bedrock at Seeley Creek was proven to be 140 feet, while at the Baraboo River it is a mere 25 feet.
I rely exclusively on the knowledge and skill of our Roadmaster, Life member Dave Bierman, when it comes to assembling the respective repair plans for both bridges. And now armed with this additional information, I believe he can finalize those plans which can then be distributed to prospective contractors as we seek bids to do the work. Then we will know how much money needs to be raised in order to reach our goal.
The one number that has been discussed, even before the flood, was Dave’s estimate of $850,000 to repair the Baraboo River Bridge. Some people feel that is way too high and reflects Dave’s personal interest in having the Cadillac version of bridges. But since I have already taken some heat for accepting the $460,000 estimate to replace the depot platform, plus other sundry items, it should come as no surprise when I say I would prefer paying to drive a Cadillac as opposed to a now defunct Rambler.
We all know, or ought to know, that once the rail fans have taken their photos and continued on to their next destination, the bridge remains. To insure that it is there the next time we or our successors need it requires a top-dollar commitment in spite of the current economic conditions or competition from other projects. Just as we pay without question for the special care needed by an aging loved one, these aging structures need the same level of care and commitment.
Hopefully we can aspire to the same mindset expressed by the Scientific American magazine when it shared its views about the 1883 opening of that bridge back east when they wrote And yet the bridge is beautiful in itself. To this sentiment I would add a maxim which I learned in my college Greek class that a thing of beauty is a joy forever.
Our bridges may not be as grand in their construction as the Brooklyn Bridge, but they serve just as noble a purpose, the safe passage of people and equipment.
Next week I’ll conclude this part of the series inaugurated by our Educator, Stan Searing, with a message about our plans to tap into the Village of North Freedom’s water system
Monday, May 10. 2010
Life In The Flood Plain
By: Don Meyer, Manager
From the time you first arrive at our North Freedom location until the moment the train starts climbing the hill towards Ulrich Road, you are in a flood plain. It does not look that way most days. The Baraboo River flows peacefully within its banks as it wraps around the north and east sides of our property, providing a languid boundary to our existence.
The river also provides us with perhaps the greatest challenge for any future construction at this site. Sauk County, where we are located, has approved each round of restrictive measures proposed by FEMA and endorsed by the DNR on what can be done in a flood plain.
As I understand the politics of the situation, local governments have no real choice in the matter. You either approve the standards or run the risk of being removed from the flood insurance program. And while the local leadership may be sympathetic to our cause, they are constrained from making allowances when it comes to operations in a flood plain, especially when the topic is construction.
My first encounter with this issue came a few years back when we attempted to assist the owners of the LS&I steam locomotive No. 22 in constructing a building over their engine and a baggage car being used as a tool car sitting on adjacent track. The location of this new building was between two existing structures, our Engine House and the Car Shop.
Getting the appropriate permits to build the new building seemed like a slam dunk to the locomotive’s owners. They ordered a set of plans from the contractor that would span the two pieces of equipment where they sat. They took care to insure that the exterior of the new structure would be compatible in appearance with our other buildings, which are designed to convey a feeling that you have wandered into a long-used rail yard reflecting an image of early 1900s train operations.
Mid-Continent prepared the construction site by installing drain tiles to deal with the underground water problem that also plagues our bucolic site. And we started removing all manner of stuff (I won’t call it junk) that had long been stored in this part of our property. But when the contractor could not secure the necessary permits, the owners appealed to me for help in working with the folks at Sauk County Planning and Zoning so that the building could be completed “before the snow flies.” Thus began my education in the woes of attempting to build in a flood plain.
Step one was to measure the distance from the river bank to the nearest corner of the proposed building in order to prove that we complied with the current set-back rules. Step two was to hire a surveyor to determine that the lowest point of the proposed floor level was at or above the required base elevation for building in a flood plain. We passed the first test but were found to be two feet below the required base elevation.
I learned during a succession of meetings with Planning and Zoning that the flood plain can be further divided between the flood way, which is basically the river bed, and the flood fringe, which is everything from the flood way to the outer limits of the flood plain. Obviously no construction can take place in the flood way, but they did give us three options for constructing the new building in the desired location.
First we could bring in fill and elevate that section of the track two feet in order to bring the lowest point of the floor into compliance with the base elevation. Possible but not practical for an operating railroad museum since the locomotive and baggage car could not be moved from what would essentially become their final resting place.
Second we could construct a water-tight structure, protecting the building’s contents by effectively sealing off prospective flood waters, while also sealing in the equipment. Possible but not affordable, since we still wanted doors that we could open without the use of hydraulic jacks or heavy-duty cranes.
Third we could construct the building in the desired spot to the desired dimensions except that the siding could not touch the ground. The required two-foot gap between the ground and the bottom of the walls would allow the flood waters to flow unabated across the property. Possible but not aesthetically desirable since the new building would depart from the appearance of our other structures it was suppose to emulate.
If you have visited our property in recent years then you know this building was never constructed. The locomotive’s owners withdrew their request after a lot of money was spent by them and the museum in pursuit of this dream. And as I stated earlier, the county has since approved more restrictive measures, making even these options no longer available to us.
My education continues, though, as we turn our attention to a project we cannot abandon, the rebuild of our depot platform. A tentative design has been proposed and funding secured for this project estimated to cost $460,000. And while the principal source of our funding is through a forgivable loan from the county, the county’s office of Planning and Zoning has yet to approve the plan. I have a meeting set up with them at the end of this week to start the review and (hopefully) approval process.
The county’s funding largesse comes with a new string attached. While we await Planning and Zoning’s ruling on our repair plan, we must also comply with standards imposed by the Department and Housing and Urban Development for building in the flood plain. To do this we must file a statement demonstrating that we have no viable alternatives for locating this project elsewhere. And we must post public notices giving our neighbors a chance to comment on our project.
We apparently have one neighbor who has already complained that we allow camping on our property without the required permits. This is in reference to the string of privately owned equipment we have on a pair of tracks, near the river unfortunately, which we euphemistically refer to as camp cars. Planning and Zoning’s subsequent application of the flood plain ordinances on this apparent camp site would require us to move the rolling stock out of the flood plain for six months out of the year. Needless to say, we are going to appeal that opinion.
It is not my intent to disparage the folks at Planning and Zoning. They have been gracious to us throughout all of our meetings concerning these various projects. And they have done their best to find ways to shape our projects so that they comply with the approved standards. But they do require us to comply with those standards. There is no bending of the rules out of sympathy for our plight.
Some museum members have suggested that we relocate our operations by moving up the hill past Ulrich Road; a take the high ground sort of strategy. This seems reasonable on the surface, but no one has calculated the cost of acquiring and improving the property in order to make the move. And a look at the new flood maps would reveal that portions of what we suppose to be the high ground is also in the flood plain. The restrictive ordinances would follow us even with this attempt to secure a lasting future.
For those of you who would like to see a visual representation of the problem I have described for you, you can see the flood maps related to our North Freedom location by visiting FEMA’s Map Servicing Center web site. The ID number for the map showing the property around our shops, depot and office is 55111C0378E.
And for those who are really intrepid adventurers into the bureaucratic jungle of flood plain rules, you can read through the county’s approved standards by visiting their web site. On their home page you will see a nice winter photo of Mid-Continent being used as the icon for the link to the web page detailing their 2010 budget. But what you will need to do is scroll down past this pleasant image to the bottom of the home page. There under the Government header you can click on the link for Ordinances. The flood plain rules are chapter 9 of this document.
These ordinances also affect are plans to repair our two bridges. Work is taking place in devising repair plans for both the Seeley Creek and Baraboo River bridges and next week I will share an update on those projects with you.
Stay well.
From the time you first arrive at our North Freedom location until the moment the train starts climbing the hill towards Ulrich Road, you are in a flood plain. It does not look that way most days. The Baraboo River flows peacefully within its banks as it wraps around the north and east sides of our property, providing a languid boundary to our existence.
The river also provides us with perhaps the greatest challenge for any future construction at this site. Sauk County, where we are located, has approved each round of restrictive measures proposed by FEMA and endorsed by the DNR on what can be done in a flood plain.
As I understand the politics of the situation, local governments have no real choice in the matter. You either approve the standards or run the risk of being removed from the flood insurance program. And while the local leadership may be sympathetic to our cause, they are constrained from making allowances when it comes to operations in a flood plain, especially when the topic is construction.
My first encounter with this issue came a few years back when we attempted to assist the owners of the LS&I steam locomotive No. 22 in constructing a building over their engine and a baggage car being used as a tool car sitting on adjacent track. The location of this new building was between two existing structures, our Engine House and the Car Shop.
Getting the appropriate permits to build the new building seemed like a slam dunk to the locomotive’s owners. They ordered a set of plans from the contractor that would span the two pieces of equipment where they sat. They took care to insure that the exterior of the new structure would be compatible in appearance with our other buildings, which are designed to convey a feeling that you have wandered into a long-used rail yard reflecting an image of early 1900s train operations.
Mid-Continent prepared the construction site by installing drain tiles to deal with the underground water problem that also plagues our bucolic site. And we started removing all manner of stuff (I won’t call it junk) that had long been stored in this part of our property. But when the contractor could not secure the necessary permits, the owners appealed to me for help in working with the folks at Sauk County Planning and Zoning so that the building could be completed “before the snow flies.” Thus began my education in the woes of attempting to build in a flood plain.
Step one was to measure the distance from the river bank to the nearest corner of the proposed building in order to prove that we complied with the current set-back rules. Step two was to hire a surveyor to determine that the lowest point of the proposed floor level was at or above the required base elevation for building in a flood plain. We passed the first test but were found to be two feet below the required base elevation.
I learned during a succession of meetings with Planning and Zoning that the flood plain can be further divided between the flood way, which is basically the river bed, and the flood fringe, which is everything from the flood way to the outer limits of the flood plain. Obviously no construction can take place in the flood way, but they did give us three options for constructing the new building in the desired location.
First we could bring in fill and elevate that section of the track two feet in order to bring the lowest point of the floor into compliance with the base elevation. Possible but not practical for an operating railroad museum since the locomotive and baggage car could not be moved from what would essentially become their final resting place.
Second we could construct a water-tight structure, protecting the building’s contents by effectively sealing off prospective flood waters, while also sealing in the equipment. Possible but not affordable, since we still wanted doors that we could open without the use of hydraulic jacks or heavy-duty cranes.
Third we could construct the building in the desired spot to the desired dimensions except that the siding could not touch the ground. The required two-foot gap between the ground and the bottom of the walls would allow the flood waters to flow unabated across the property. Possible but not aesthetically desirable since the new building would depart from the appearance of our other structures it was suppose to emulate.
If you have visited our property in recent years then you know this building was never constructed. The locomotive’s owners withdrew their request after a lot of money was spent by them and the museum in pursuit of this dream. And as I stated earlier, the county has since approved more restrictive measures, making even these options no longer available to us.
My education continues, though, as we turn our attention to a project we cannot abandon, the rebuild of our depot platform. A tentative design has been proposed and funding secured for this project estimated to cost $460,000. And while the principal source of our funding is through a forgivable loan from the county, the county’s office of Planning and Zoning has yet to approve the plan. I have a meeting set up with them at the end of this week to start the review and (hopefully) approval process.
The county’s funding largesse comes with a new string attached. While we await Planning and Zoning’s ruling on our repair plan, we must also comply with standards imposed by the Department and Housing and Urban Development for building in the flood plain. To do this we must file a statement demonstrating that we have no viable alternatives for locating this project elsewhere. And we must post public notices giving our neighbors a chance to comment on our project.
We apparently have one neighbor who has already complained that we allow camping on our property without the required permits. This is in reference to the string of privately owned equipment we have on a pair of tracks, near the river unfortunately, which we euphemistically refer to as camp cars. Planning and Zoning’s subsequent application of the flood plain ordinances on this apparent camp site would require us to move the rolling stock out of the flood plain for six months out of the year. Needless to say, we are going to appeal that opinion.
It is not my intent to disparage the folks at Planning and Zoning. They have been gracious to us throughout all of our meetings concerning these various projects. And they have done their best to find ways to shape our projects so that they comply with the approved standards. But they do require us to comply with those standards. There is no bending of the rules out of sympathy for our plight.
Some museum members have suggested that we relocate our operations by moving up the hill past Ulrich Road; a take the high ground sort of strategy. This seems reasonable on the surface, but no one has calculated the cost of acquiring and improving the property in order to make the move. And a look at the new flood maps would reveal that portions of what we suppose to be the high ground is also in the flood plain. The restrictive ordinances would follow us even with this attempt to secure a lasting future.
For those of you who would like to see a visual representation of the problem I have described for you, you can see the flood maps related to our North Freedom location by visiting FEMA’s Map Servicing Center web site. The ID number for the map showing the property around our shops, depot and office is 55111C0378E.
And for those who are really intrepid adventurers into the bureaucratic jungle of flood plain rules, you can read through the county’s approved standards by visiting their web site. On their home page you will see a nice winter photo of Mid-Continent being used as the icon for the link to the web page detailing their 2010 budget. But what you will need to do is scroll down past this pleasant image to the bottom of the home page. There under the Government header you can click on the link for Ordinances. The flood plain rules are chapter 9 of this document.
These ordinances also affect are plans to repair our two bridges. Work is taking place in devising repair plans for both the Seeley Creek and Baraboo River bridges and next week I will share an update on those projects with you.
Stay well.
Monday, May 3. 2010
The Master Plan(s)
By: Don Meyer, Manager
The Master Plan, as presented, is meant to be a guide for improvements to the physical plant at North Freedom for museum displays and operations.
Thus begins the first known attempt at drafting a formal plan for Mid-Continent. It was written by Life member Bill Armstrong in 1974, fifteen years after the museum’s founding and eleven years after its move from Hillsboro to North Freedom.
The last and most comprehensive plan was drafted in 2004 by the Strategic Short and Long Range Planning Committee, chaired by Life member Paul Swanson. The thirty years separating these two reports have been filled with a succession of individual endeavors and planning retreats intent on producing a master plan for the organization’s future development.
What they all hold in common is the pattern set by Armstrong’s report; improvements to the physical plant. Many of those hoped for improvements, such as the connection to the Village of North Freedom’s sewer and water systems, have been perennial favorites in the planning process. And while several goals have been attained, the general trend has been a lengthening list of must have projects which have eluded our best efforts for implementation.
Cost has been the major obstacle between wishful thinking and fulfillment. But another barrier has been the changing sense of priorities. Coaling facilities, display buildings, track work, acquisitions, office space, storage space and improved restrooms have all taken their turn at or near the top of the list based on the perception of current need and possibly the bias of the planner or committee members.
The means of financing these goals has been another common thread throughout the history of Mid-Continent’s planning process. The emphasis has always been on increasing attendance and increasing fares as the number one means of raising revenue. A close second has been the desire to increase membership for the added revenue generated by dues payments, but more importantly the prospect of reduced project costs with the promise of volunteer labor.
The 1988 Developmental Plan established donations as a viable source of revenue by stating “We need a full-time fundraiser who can tap into the foundation and corporate monies which should be available to us for our work.” Two campaigns were subsequently proposed; one for capital improvements and the other to create a $10,000,000 endowment with the hope that it would generate $500,000 in annual operating revenue. (If you are going to dream, dream big).
A review of the planning documents does reveal a few surprises. The desire for “outside’ help from experts in the fields of business, museum management, fund raising and railroad operations was proposed at the March 1977 planning retreat held in Freeport, IL. Dr. Phil Hastings submitted a written request to establish an Advisory Council “for recommendations regarding museum operation and to explore fund raising thru grants.” And the idea found further support in a 1979 planning retreat when the proposal was made for the “Final selection and organization of the Advisory Council of non-member experts in fields relevant to our goals and problems.” I am not aware that such a council was ever created, but in 1999 the museum’s by-laws were amended to allow for non-members to be appointed to the Board of Directors with a similar goal in mind.
Outside consultants have been utilized for the planning process. The first was Edward W. King, Jr. from Transportation Management Associates based in Milwaukee. His Plan For The Future was submitted to the Board of Directors in January 1984. King was followed by rail historian John Hankey, who facilitated a planning retreat held in Madison in 1995, and by Al Louer of Colonial Williamsburg, who submitted a report after conducting an independent field study in 1997.
I thought Stan Searing and I were the first ones to advocate for accreditation, when we wrote articles in 2000 for The Railway Gazette on that subject. But at that 1979 planning retreat held in Dodgeville, WI the suggestion was made that accreditation with the American Association of Museums would “add weight for grant requests.” Like the Advisory Council, this topic would surface again in subsequent planning sessions but never be fully implemented.
Perhaps the biggest surprise, to me at least, is the number of times the topics of expansion and relocation have been part of the planning process. The possibility of expanding our operation to Baraboo was proposed in the Edward King report after noting that “As far as tourism is concerned, the Mid-Continent Railway Museum operates under a handicap by being located in North Freedom. It is difficult to satisfactorily tap the tourist trade that is found in the Madison-Baraboo-Wisconsin Dells corridor of US Highway 12.”
Expansion and/or relocation were hot topics in the 1980s as fear of the Chicago & North Western’s abandonment of the line between Madison and Wyeville, WI presented the prospect that Mid-Continent would be cutoff from the general operating system unless the State would rail bank the line. But even the Union Pacific’s takeover of the C&NW and the Wisconsin & Southern Railroad’s continued operation of the line as far as Reedsburg did not eliminate this concern.
Tucked away among the reports compiled by Paul’s Strategic Short and Long Range Planning Committee is a single-page document entitled Possible Relocation Sites For The Mid-Continent Railway Historical Society. Attributed to “input from various Society members including some SSLRPC members” it identifies six prospective locations for moving the entire operation in order to be closer to a major highway, out of the flood plain, and having access to adequate public services like water, sewer and electricity.
Thirty-plus years of planning have produced a wealth of ideas for projects and programs suitable for our organization. The level of sophistication achieved, especially for a volunteer organization, is impressive and all who have participated in this process should be commended for their efforts.
I have asked our web master to post the report created by the Strategic Short and Long Range Planning Committee so that everyone can see and appreciate the scope of the work done by this group, building on all that has gone before. Even though it was designed to cover the period from 2005 through 2009, it is well worth the time needed to read and digest the significance of the concepts presented for improvements to the physical plant at North Freedom for museum displays and operations as Bill Armstrong originally hoped.
Ideas abound. The challenge is to limit them to what we can achieve and within that smaller pool to prioritize them in the order of importance to insure the perpetuation of our operation. That takes knowledge based on training and successful experience in overcoming the challenges that prevent dreams from becoming reality.
Next week I will share information about one of our newest and greatest challenges, the imposition of the new flood plain rules for Sauk County.
The Master Plan, as presented, is meant to be a guide for improvements to the physical plant at North Freedom for museum displays and operations.
Thus begins the first known attempt at drafting a formal plan for Mid-Continent. It was written by Life member Bill Armstrong in 1974, fifteen years after the museum’s founding and eleven years after its move from Hillsboro to North Freedom.
The last and most comprehensive plan was drafted in 2004 by the Strategic Short and Long Range Planning Committee, chaired by Life member Paul Swanson. The thirty years separating these two reports have been filled with a succession of individual endeavors and planning retreats intent on producing a master plan for the organization’s future development.
What they all hold in common is the pattern set by Armstrong’s report; improvements to the physical plant. Many of those hoped for improvements, such as the connection to the Village of North Freedom’s sewer and water systems, have been perennial favorites in the planning process. And while several goals have been attained, the general trend has been a lengthening list of must have projects which have eluded our best efforts for implementation.
Cost has been the major obstacle between wishful thinking and fulfillment. But another barrier has been the changing sense of priorities. Coaling facilities, display buildings, track work, acquisitions, office space, storage space and improved restrooms have all taken their turn at or near the top of the list based on the perception of current need and possibly the bias of the planner or committee members.
The means of financing these goals has been another common thread throughout the history of Mid-Continent’s planning process. The emphasis has always been on increasing attendance and increasing fares as the number one means of raising revenue. A close second has been the desire to increase membership for the added revenue generated by dues payments, but more importantly the prospect of reduced project costs with the promise of volunteer labor.
The 1988 Developmental Plan established donations as a viable source of revenue by stating “We need a full-time fundraiser who can tap into the foundation and corporate monies which should be available to us for our work.” Two campaigns were subsequently proposed; one for capital improvements and the other to create a $10,000,000 endowment with the hope that it would generate $500,000 in annual operating revenue. (If you are going to dream, dream big).
A review of the planning documents does reveal a few surprises. The desire for “outside’ help from experts in the fields of business, museum management, fund raising and railroad operations was proposed at the March 1977 planning retreat held in Freeport, IL. Dr. Phil Hastings submitted a written request to establish an Advisory Council “for recommendations regarding museum operation and to explore fund raising thru grants.” And the idea found further support in a 1979 planning retreat when the proposal was made for the “Final selection and organization of the Advisory Council of non-member experts in fields relevant to our goals and problems.” I am not aware that such a council was ever created, but in 1999 the museum’s by-laws were amended to allow for non-members to be appointed to the Board of Directors with a similar goal in mind.
Outside consultants have been utilized for the planning process. The first was Edward W. King, Jr. from Transportation Management Associates based in Milwaukee. His Plan For The Future was submitted to the Board of Directors in January 1984. King was followed by rail historian John Hankey, who facilitated a planning retreat held in Madison in 1995, and by Al Louer of Colonial Williamsburg, who submitted a report after conducting an independent field study in 1997.
I thought Stan Searing and I were the first ones to advocate for accreditation, when we wrote articles in 2000 for The Railway Gazette on that subject. But at that 1979 planning retreat held in Dodgeville, WI the suggestion was made that accreditation with the American Association of Museums would “add weight for grant requests.” Like the Advisory Council, this topic would surface again in subsequent planning sessions but never be fully implemented.
Perhaps the biggest surprise, to me at least, is the number of times the topics of expansion and relocation have been part of the planning process. The possibility of expanding our operation to Baraboo was proposed in the Edward King report after noting that “As far as tourism is concerned, the Mid-Continent Railway Museum operates under a handicap by being located in North Freedom. It is difficult to satisfactorily tap the tourist trade that is found in the Madison-Baraboo-Wisconsin Dells corridor of US Highway 12.”
Expansion and/or relocation were hot topics in the 1980s as fear of the Chicago & North Western’s abandonment of the line between Madison and Wyeville, WI presented the prospect that Mid-Continent would be cutoff from the general operating system unless the State would rail bank the line. But even the Union Pacific’s takeover of the C&NW and the Wisconsin & Southern Railroad’s continued operation of the line as far as Reedsburg did not eliminate this concern.
Tucked away among the reports compiled by Paul’s Strategic Short and Long Range Planning Committee is a single-page document entitled Possible Relocation Sites For The Mid-Continent Railway Historical Society. Attributed to “input from various Society members including some SSLRPC members” it identifies six prospective locations for moving the entire operation in order to be closer to a major highway, out of the flood plain, and having access to adequate public services like water, sewer and electricity.
Thirty-plus years of planning have produced a wealth of ideas for projects and programs suitable for our organization. The level of sophistication achieved, especially for a volunteer organization, is impressive and all who have participated in this process should be commended for their efforts.
I have asked our web master to post the report created by the Strategic Short and Long Range Planning Committee so that everyone can see and appreciate the scope of the work done by this group, building on all that has gone before. Even though it was designed to cover the period from 2005 through 2009, it is well worth the time needed to read and digest the significance of the concepts presented for improvements to the physical plant at North Freedom for museum displays and operations as Bill Armstrong originally hoped.
Ideas abound. The challenge is to limit them to what we can achieve and within that smaller pool to prioritize them in the order of importance to insure the perpetuation of our operation. That takes knowledge based on training and successful experience in overcoming the challenges that prevent dreams from becoming reality.
Next week I will share information about one of our newest and greatest challenges, the imposition of the new flood plain rules for Sauk County.
(Page 1 of 1, totaling 5 entries)
Calendar
Quicksearch
Archives
Categories
Syndicate This Blog
Blog Administration
Powered by
