John Nephew


Maplewood City Council Policy & Politics

 



Saturday, August 28, 2010

Spotlight on Maplewood - August

New this year is Spotlight on Maplewood, a cable TV program being produced by the City of Maplewood. And I'm happy to see that, in case you don't have cable, or don't have the chance to watch or record it at the times when it's played, episodes are being put online so that you can watch them on your computer.

Here is the August episode. In it, City Manager Jim Antonen interviews Ann Hutchinson from the Maplewood Nature Center about the Extreme Green Makeover; and then talks with environmental planner Shann Finwall about the idea of organized trash collection.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Extreme Green Winners

Last night's workshop took an unusual direction. After a discussion of the impact of a recent state Supreme Court decision on the standards to apply to variance decisions, the entire City Council drove over to the home of Michele and Michael Tibideau, to inform them that they had won the Extreme Green Makeover contest. Their front yard will be receiving a $15,000 landscaping makeover, installing environmentally friendly features such as stormwater management, native plantings, etc.

Local TV station Kare11 was on hand to record the event; there was a short piece about it in their 10 PM news program, and a blurb is on their website.

Congratulations to the Tibideaus, and thanks to the sponsors who funded the prize and the judges evaluated all the applicants!

Labels: ,

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

A Problem for PACE

Last month I referenced the energy improvements financing program that was included in legislation passed this year. Such programs are often referred to as PACE, for "Property Assessed Clean Energy."

Unfortunately, these programs have encountered a snag: The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees entities such as Fannie Mae, issued a statement on July 6 about the impact of such programs on mortgage lending. The problem, in brief, is that PACE programs dictate that the loans for energy improvements become senior liens on the real estate — meaning they have a higher priority than the mortgage lender in terms of being paid in case of a foreclosure. As you may have heard, a lot of mortgage lenders have been facing some difficulties in the past few years (to put it mildly), and FHFA is concerned that PACE programs increase the risk to lenders.

The result is a set of new restrictions on the entities that FHFA regulates. As one local official from Colorado quoted in The Wall Street Journal puts it, "They're basically saying they'll redline communities that move forward with PACE financing." One of the steps being required, for example, is "Adjusting loan-to-value ratios to reflect the maximum permissible PACE loan amount available to borrowers in PACE jurisdictions" — effectively meaning that if you buy a house in a city where PACE loans are available, you'll have to make a larger down payment to account for the possibility that you might take out such a loan.

As I understand it, Minnesota's PACE program is not yet set up. This new wrinkle may delay and alter its implementation, and may also hurt its appeal if the result is for loans not to be senior liens (which would mean more risk for the local governments implementing the program).

(h/t to City Mgr. Antonen for providing a copy of the FHFA statement and a link to the WSJ article to the City Council.)

Postscript:
According to an AP article this evening, the California Attorney General is suing FHFA over its decision.

Labels: ,

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Local Energy Improvements Financing Program

Part of the 2010 Jobs Bill passed by the legislature is the Local Energy Improvements Financing Program. City Manager Antonen recently shared an information sheet about this program with the City Council. In brief, the program will allow local governments (such as Maplewood) the ability to issue revenue bonds in order to make low-interest loans to qualifying commercial, industrial and residential property owners for energy improvements. The loans are paid back through assessments on the improved buildings' property taxes.

I expect we'll hear more about this program; it certainly seems like something Maplewood should implement for the benefit of our residents and businesses.

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Review Roundup, 6/2/10

The articles online from this week's Maplewood Review include a couple related to city council actions: "Maplewood looking to stymie motor vehicle tomfoolery," and "Maplewood looking to ban coal tar sealants."

Labels: , ,

Friday, May 14, 2010

Coal Tar Sealant Ban

This past Monday we approved the first reading of Maplewood's revised stormwater ordinance.

One thing new in the ordinance is a ban on the use of coal tar-based driveway and road sealants in the city of Maplewood. You may have read about the problems with coal tar sealcoating in the news recently. It's been a hot topic around the nation; the city of White Bear Lake was the first in Minnesota to ban them, and the legislature has been considering a state-wide ban. The MPCA has a handy fact sheet about the products. PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) found in coal tar sealcoats easily wear off the pavement, and from there work their way into homes and are washed down into the stormwater system (where they can result in major expenses for cities that have to eventually dredge and dispose of contaminated sediment from stormwater ponds).

Coal tar has been known as a carcinogen since the 18th century, so the presence of these toxins in house dust is especially worrisome for small children — having two crawling around my house right now, I can tell you that anything on the floor is going to make it into a mouth sooner or later. In our outside environment, the chemicals that run off of coal tar "kill tadpoles, cause tumors on fish and eliminate whole species of tiny aquatic creatures near the base of the food chain," to quote a lengthy and well-worth-reading article on MSBNC.com.

Banning coal tar sealants is good for the health of our families, our environment, and our city's pocketbook — as eliminating these chemicals from stormwater runoff will avoid big future bills in cleaning and maintaining our storm sewer infrastructure.

Labels: ,

Friday, April 23, 2010

Spring Clean-Up Day 2010

Tomorrow, April 24th, is the 2010 Spring Clean-Up Day in Maplewood. If you are a Maplewood resident, you can bring items for disposal to Aldrich Arena from 8 AM to 1 PM. More information is available on the city's website.

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 05, 2010

Carp in Lake Gervais

At this evening's council workshop, we had a presentation from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. Many things about the watershed were discussed, including a survey of carp in local lakes that is part of a study of their impact on phosphorus suspended in our lakes (both in churning it up from the bottom of shallow lakes, and in excreting it themselves).

On the RWMWD's website, I found a link to a slideshow from the carp-counting operation in Lake Gervais. Check it out. Besides an awful lot of carp, you'll see a really enormous muskie that they pulled out of the chilly waters — and put right back in — this past January.

Labels:

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Support from the Ad-Hoc Commission

At last week's council meeting, during the discussion of options for the former CoPar property in the Fish Creek area, I made reference to an e-mail sent to the city council by the members of the now-completed Fish Creek Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission. I think it's worth sharing:

March 5, 2010

Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members:

On behalf of the members of the former Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Ad-hoc Commission who are listed at the end of this letter, I am writing in support of the proposal to issue an Economic Development Authority bond to purchase the former CoPar property in south Maplewood. We believe this is a very creative approach for the city to act upon its stated desire to protect some or all of this natural area. Unfortunately, I will be out of town next week when you take up this matter, so I would like to share some thoughts regarding the proposal.

Mr. Konewko contacted me late last week to discuss this idea, shortly after the property was listed. As the chair of the former commission, I contacted all of the voting members of that commission, as well as several ex officio members, to seek their input regarding the proposal. They unanimously supported pursuing this opportunity.

Below are some of the major points that came out of those conversations:

1) The price at which the property is listed is a bargain the city is unlikely to ever see again. It also means the property is likely to sell quickly, and while no-one can predict when such a sale might occur, there is a very real concern that the property will be purchased before a referendum could be brought to the voters this November.

2) Purchase of the property would put the city “in the driver’s seat”, allowing us to ensure protection of the most sensitive areas, development trails, and public access to the creek and bluffs – thereby achieving the majority of recommendations made in the Fish Creek commission’s report to city council. It would also allow the city greater control over the design of any development that does occur, allowing us to minimize its environmental footprint.

3) Development of the northernmost parcel, along Carver Ave., makes sense and is supported by the former commission members. Having residents in this area may even help reduce misuse of the open space areas, by having more “eyes and ears” in the area, especially near the main access point to the property (Henry Lane).

4) The former commission members are still committed to the vision for Fish Creek outlined in the report to city council. They all expressed a desire to avoid development in the parcels south of Fish Creek, if at all possible. They suggested that if development of the property is phased, starting with the Carver Ave. parcel, this could provide the city the time it needs to explore a variety of funding sources to “buy back” some or all of the bond, thus reducing or eliminating the need for development in the parcels south of Fish Creek. The low list price makes it much more likely that the city could secure sufficient funds to do this and all of the partner agencies represented on the former commission (Ramsey County, Watershed District, National Park Service, Friends of the Mississippi River) expressed interest in assisting the city to seek those funds.

5) If the city still decides to pursue a referendum to prevent development of the south parcel(s), purchasing the property now allows the city to bring the referendum at a time when the economic climate might make passage more likely. Additional time would also allow the city time to engage in a better process to craft a referendum that addresses needs beyond the Fish Creek area. Moreover, the current open space referendum sunsets in 2014 and residents may be more likely to support another park/public lands referendum if it is perceived as a extension of the existing levy, rather than one added on top of it.

In summary, given the long-standing desire of the city and residents to protect this area of Maplewood, this appears to be an investment opportunity of a lifetime, and one that comes with little or no risk to the city. It allows us to obtain the property at a price we could only have dreamed of, provides us the time to seek funds to protect all of the land from development (except the Carver Ave parcel), and if we fail in that mission, the city can still recover its investment while ensuring ecologically sound development of some of the area while securing access and recreational opportunities for our residents.

We want to thank the council for the time and attention being paid to the Fish Creek greenway area in general, and this opportunity in particular. If we can provide any information to assist you in your deliberations, please let me know.

Respectfully yours,

Ginny Yingling
Commissioner, Environment & Natural Resources Commission
Members of the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenways Commission (all reviewed and approved this letter):

Cliff Aichinger, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District
Ron Cockriel, Friends of Maplewood Nature
Ginny Gaynor, City of Maplewood
John Moriarty, Ramsey County Parks
Carolyn Peterson, Maplewood Parks Commission

Labels: , ,

Sunday, March 07, 2010

Mayoral Missives

I see Mayor Rossbach has been busy on his blog this weekend, serving up Maplewood news. Check out his posts on skywarn spotter training, the Extreme Green Makeover, and the impending demise of NEST (North East Suburban Transit).

Labels: ,

Saturday, February 06, 2010

This Week's Review in Review

The Maplewood City Council gets a lot of ink in this week's Maplewood Review. You can read the articles online about Julie Wasiluk's temporary council appointment, the passing of the sign ordinance (minus two sections for further study and discussion), and the final passage of the amended recreational fire ordinance.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Fish Creek Recommendations

This coming Monday, the city council workshop will include the presentation of the report of the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission (note: link is a 6.5 MB, 40-page PDF with numerous images, which will take a while to download if you a slower internet connection).

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

The Smoke Clears

Remember all the controversy about wood smoke? Remember how, right before the election, a few pamphleteers and cable access TV shows purported to have uncovered a secret agenda on the part of mayoral candidate Will Rossbach to ban recreational fires, fireplaces, wood stoves, etc.?

Last night we passed the second reading of the amended recreational fire ordinance. It becomes law as soon as it's published in the official newspaper. Contrary to all the election-season bleatings of Maplewood's conspiracy mongers, we didn't ban wood fires. In fact, most members of the city council told you all along, if you asked, that no ban was ever being considered.

But from the outset of the wood smoke task force, some people (including certain now-former councilmembers) have worked hard to fan the flames of fear with rumors that a ban on wood burning was imminent. Denials could only be seen as proof of the sinister scheme underway, to their way of thinking.

Now that the ordinance has actually passed (and there is no ban, in case that was unclear), the naked dishonesty and cynicism of these conspiracy mongers should be plain to all.

What we actually did do:
  • Changed the ordinance to conform to state law (which supercedes our ordinances anyway) where they were in conflict. Examples: Our old ordinance permitted coal as fuel for recreational fires, which Minnesota law prohibits; our ordinance allowed fires 20 feet from a structure, while the state requires a minimum of 25.
  • Extended the permitted hours for recreational fires, formerly from 2 PM to 11 PM, now from 10 AM to 11 PM.
  • Added a "good neighbor" clause that states "Recreational fires should not be lit or maintained if the smoke therefrom unreasonably causes discomfort or a negative impact to neighboring properties."
  • Added a wind restriction to allow recreational fires only when the wind is less than 15 mph.
And after all that controversy and character bashing, after turning a minor ordinance update into a political football, how many of those "concerned" people actually showed up last night to comment on the final passage of the ordinance? Zero.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Maplewood Review on the Wetland Ordinance

This week's Maplewood Review reported on the passage of the second reading of Maplewood's revised Wetland Ordinance.

Labels: ,

Saturday, January 09, 2010

Chicken Feed...back

Here are some of the comments I received in response to my entry linking to the Maplewood Review article about urban chickens last week.

Comment #1:
How would property values be affected?

What about the extreme cold on the chickens we have here in winter?

What is the benefit vs. cost of this idea? Could we instead support local farm raised natural/organic chickens? Also, it seems like it benefits most people with a larger size property who are able to abide by possible rules about footage between coops and neighboring houses, etc. Is this fair to those who don't own enough property but want chickens? What is the economic benefit?...

Interesting idea, maybe a good one if enough and the right restrictions guidelines and enforcement are put in place...or maybe not.

I do have to say though that a barking neighbor dog and piles of dog crap like we find so often on sidewalks and streets around here are much worse than a well-cared for chicken coop might be.

Comment #2:

I would love to have a couple of chickens as pets and for eggs, I have always wanted to do this.

Comment #3:

[We] both support the practice of having controlled chickens in the city. They are a good source of eggs and meat. The manure needs to be addressed in some way. It does make very good fertilizer.

We were listening to a rooster this fall from somewhere in our neighborhood. We think....

Comment #4:

I would like to stress my opposition to the idea. First of all we do not live in a rural area. I am all for having gardens but raising chickens is whole different story. If chickens were allowed then one could argue a few pigs should be OK. The story stated they could sell eggs to the local stores- Maybe they could but one must ask how many chickens would someone have to have to make it worthwhile. I would be very upset if the council ever decided to change the law to allow raising chickens once again and if I ever had to look out my window and saw chickens running around a backyard. We are a frist tier metro area not a rural area for many decades.

In addition to the e-mail, I also received comment in person from a couple who strongly oppose chickens in the city.

Labels:

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Chickens?

Last week's Maplewood Review included an article about urban chickens and Maplewood. I saw a discussion of the topic an an Environmental & Natural Resources Commission meeting earlier this year, and a resident recently brought up the topic in visitior presentations at a council meeting.

Do you have thoughts about whether residents should be allowed to raise chickens in Maplewood, and under what conditions? Drop me a line at my city e-mail and let me know what you think.

Labels: ,

Monday, November 30, 2009

Fish Creek Survey

The Fish Creek Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission currently has a survey on the city's website, seeking public input about the greenway, how it's used now by residents, how it might be used in the future, and how people feel about things like spending money on conservation. If you are a resident of Maplewood or even a neighboring community, I'd strongly encourage you to fill out the survey. Even if you don't know how to get to Fish Creek, your input can still help (and there's even a "not sure where it is" option to answer the question, "How often do you visit Fish Creek or the Ramsey County Fish Creek open space?")

Please take a couple of minutes to fill out the survey today.

Labels: ,

Friday, November 20, 2009

Wetland Ordinance Article

This week's Maplewood Review includes an article about the first reading (or I suppose I should say, the latest first reading, given how many times this item has come back before the city council for additional discussion and revision) of our updated wetland ordinance. The article also describes Erik Hjelle's outburst that occurred during the wetland discussion.

After this agenda item, the council took a break, during which Mr. Hjelle gathered up his things and left city hall and the remainder of the meeting.

Labels: ,

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Blowing Smoke

Have you heard that nonsense about Maplewood wanting to ban wood fires?

If so, you've encountered the disinformation campaign spearheaded by the supporters of Mayor Diana Longrie and others opposed to Will Rossbach. As has been the case in so many past elections, these people can get into office only by spreading lies and distortions, and by tearing down their opponents. This year it's wood smoke; two years ago it was the bogus claim, promoted by the team of DelRay Rokke and Rebecca Cave, that there were plans to sell city parks and open space to developers. Four years ago there were baseless claims about closing fire stations. No doubt we'll see last minute efforts to exploit every one of these lies again. Even if their tactics don't win new supporters, their fundamental strategy is to turn people off and suppress voting. If turnout is low enough, the thinking goes, their devoted core of supporters will be a majority on election day.

Sometimes they spread their messages through anonymous flyers (like the scare tactic pieces the mayor's husband was caught distributing earlier this year, or the bigoted ones that have more recently appeared). Sometimes they use websites (such as the one that often features Erik Hjelle's bile, and has a domain name registered to council candidate Dave Hafner), cable access TV shows, and photocopied "newspapers" that loudly proclaim independence and non-partisanship while blatantly promoting their candidates.

It's instructive to actually watch the meetings of the wood smoke task force. From the outset, Rossbach made it clear that a ban was not an option. The point was to find ways to improve the ordinance, in ways that both pro- and anti-burning residents could support.

It quickly became clear that a number of people on the task force (among them two people who would be candidates in the primary, Delray Rokke and John Wykoff) were not motivated to find consensus or improve the city code. Their agenda was to make the whole affair into a distorted political issue that could be used against Rossbach in the upcoming campaign. Obstruction and misinformation were the order of the day. Members of this faction would spend a large percentage of the meeting arguing loudly over whether or not to approve the agenda, or disputing the minutes of the previous meeting. Every meeting, with a new audience of angry residents turned out by a new batch of misleading anonymous flyers, they would declare that the true, secret purpose of the task force was to ban wood fires, and would attempt to argue with this straw man in an effort to keep anything from actually being done.

At one meeting, while Dave Hafner yelled at task force members from the audience, John Wykoff even began shouting, "Don't vote for Will Rossbach!"

Is it any wonder that some members of the task force stopped showing up? You can understand the frustration of the people who were there in good faith, on both sides of the issue, while this group hijacked each meeting with their malicious political agenda. The same strategy these people use in city elections — drive away enough reasonable people so that your partisans constitute a majority of those who remain — ultimately enabled them to vote against any changes whatsoever, even to update the city code to match the current state fire code (which supercedes city code anyhow).

For certain people, and the candidates they support (whether it's Rebecca Cave falsely taking credit for moving visitor presentations to the start of council meetings, Dave Hafner declaring at the LWV Forum that there should be no time limits on abusive visitor presentations, or Diana Longrie taking pride in how she mismanages our meetings), this is what they mean by "citizen participation." It means turning city meetings into a cesspool of personal attacks, defamation, and invective. It means driving away reasonable, normal people, and leaving most of the "citizen" voices in the room to be those of the malicious, the obsessed, the dishonest, and the delusional, the failed candidates and the out-of-town agitators who just come for the face time on camera — and then declaring that their voices must be heeded, because "they are the citizens!" and "the citizens are the city!"

A few candidates — such as Jim Llanas, Kathleen Juenemann, and Will Rossbach — think that being a leader means also representing the people who are not in the room. Speaking for the people who elected you because they trust your judgement, and, having jobs and families and lives to live, they have better things to do than be there themselves all the time. Representing the needs of the whole community, not just the loud and obsessive few.

When you vote next week, ask yourself which candidates will be representing you next year, whether or not you're there in the room when they make decisions.

Labels: ,

Friday, October 23, 2009

Fall Clean-Up Day 2009

Tomorrow is Maplewood's Fall Clean-Up Day, taking place at Gethsemane Lutheran Church, 2410 Stillwater Road. Besides accepting many other types of waste, the city will be collecting bicycles in any condition for recycling by Re-Cycle. Donations for the Second Harvest Food Bank will also be accepted.

For more information, see the flyer on the city website. (Printed copies of the flyer have been available in City Hall, too.)

Labels: , ,

Newer Posts Older Posts

 

Blog Posts by Date

Powered by Blogger & Blogger Templates. Customized by Michelle Nephew.
Prepared and paid for by the
John Nephew Election Committee,
628 County Road B East,
Maplewood, MN 55117
651-776-5963
john@johnnephew.com