Tomorrow, August 28th, is this year's annual Johnny Appleseed Day at the Bruentrup Farm, hosted by the Maplewood Area Historical Society. It's great fun for families, so be sure and stop by!

Last year we enjoyed attending, and I posted a couple of photos.

Labels: events, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 8/27/2010 07:56:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Taste of Maplewood will take place in Goodrich Park tomorrow from 4-10 PM and Saturday from 10 AM to 10 PM. Admission is free, and it promises to be fun for all ages, especially if you like to eat! More information is available on the city website.

Labels: events, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 8/05/2010 03:38:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

I've been watching the replay of this past week's Parks Commission meeting, in which they voted against endorsing the proposed 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Plan. Unfortunately, there seems to be a persistent confusion through the meeting about how the CIP works.

For example, one concern was the proposed spending of Park Availability Charge funds on the Gladstone Savannah. A report to the City Council summarizing the Parks Commission concerns states, “The Parks and Recreation also made a motion to fund additional projects by cutting back on the Gladstone project and all non-Gladstone PAC fees be redirected to the unfunded projects identified.”

For years, the CIP has included seemingly imminent spending on the Gladstone Savannah. But very little if any has actually been spent. Here's how the project finances were described in the four most recent CIPs:

• 2008-2012 CIP, p. 73: $900,000 to be spent in 2008; $100,000 in 2010; $500,000 in 2011; for $1.5 million total. All funds are identified as coming from the Park Development Fund.
• 2009-2013 CIP, p. 69: This page seems to be erroneous – it reports $900,000 spent in prior years (which I don't think is true); $100,000 in 2010; $500,000 in 2011. Again, all funds are listed as coming from the Park Development Fund, with a total of $1.5 million across the CIP years. I'm guessing that the intent was just to move all the same figures a year forward instead.
• 2010-2014 CIP, p. 65: This CIP listed prior year expenditures as $80,000 total. It also identifies a second funding sources: Special Assessment bonds (which were expected to be part of a redevelopment plan on the Tourist Cabins site) in addition to the Park Development Fund. Half of the prior year expenditures ($40,000 each) was to be allocated to each funding source. For 2010, we were supposedly going to spend $920,000 on the Savannah, half from the Park fund and half from Special Assessments. In 2012, $400,000 from park funds was identified; and again $400,000 in 2014. The grand total for the project in this CIP: $1.8 million.
• 2011-2015 Draft CIP, p. 61: The prior year expenditures have dropped to zero, but a third funding source — the Environmental Utility Fund (which is used for stormwater management) has been added. 2011 expenditures are listed as $1.2 million total: $200,000 from the EUF; $400,000 from Special Assessment bonds; $600,000 from the Park Development Fund. The future expenditures from the Park Development Fund are reduced to $250,000 in 2013 and $250,000 in 2015. As a result of those reductions (and the disappearing prior year expenditures), the grand total for the project in this CIP is lower, at $1.7 million.

Obviously there are some inconsistencies from one document to another, and I'll be sure to ask about that on Monday. (Do we or should we account for the spending already done on things like the soils testing that found contamination?) But the big picture is this: For at least four years in a row, our CIP has projected that we would be putting $900,000+ into the Savannah the very next year — and it has not yet actually happened.

The reason is simple. The proposed Gladstone Savannah improvements have been and remain contingent upon there actually being development moving forward in the neighborhood. Every year it seems like that might finally happen (some approvals related to the latest effort are on our agenda for Monday), and so the related parks expenditures are included in the CIP for the next year. And so far, the development has failed to materialize. With no development, and no related PAC money, the Savannah improvements keep getting pushed off into the future. Each year the details change a little bit according to whatever is the current plan in the works (will it be assessed in part to a developer? will it include stormwater management features? etc.).

While respecting and agreeing with the intent of the Parks Commission, it appears that they are asking the city to do exactly what this CIP does in practice, just as the past CIPs have done. Without development in the neighborhood, there isn't money for the Savannah; but that doesn't mean there's any funding freed up for any of the other unfunded priorities in the park system. I don't see that there are any "non-Gladstone PAC fees" here to be redirected to other projects.

Moreover, note that the amount of projected funding coming from the Park Development Fund drops from $1.5 million in 2008-2012; to $1.3 million in 2010-2014; and now to $1.1 million in 2011-2015. So besides implicitly waiting for local PAC fees to be generated by development, just like past CIPs, this draft CIP proposes using $400,000 less from the Parks fund as well.

Labels: finance, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 7/25/2010 02:06:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Tuesday evening, July 13th, my family and I enjoyed attending the dedication ceremony at Wakefield Park for the new fishing pier and picnic shelter. A plaque was presented to the Minnesota Darkhouse & Angling Association, in appreciation for the funding they helped provide for the pier. MinnAqua did a “Let’s Fish” program with the Community Center day camp kids that evening as well, putting the new pier to immediate good use!

My wife took this picture of Mayor Rossbach and the ceremonial first cast from the new pier:

Labels: events, parks, photos

Posted by John Nephew at 7/15/2010 07:25:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

As you may have heard, Maplewood will not be hosting fireworks this year at Hazelwood Park, as has been covered by media such as the Pioneer Press, the Maplewood Review (in this week's paper, not online yet as I write this), and the Star Tribune. As all the articles explain, when we were working on the budget last year and figuring out how to absorb the impact of Pawlenty's slashing of all of our Market Value Homestead Credit without even higher tax increases, we decided that this was an area we could cut for 2010.

Personally, I'm hoping fireworks will return next year (if only because the constituent who has given me the most grief over this particular budget cut is my wife) -- but I don't think it can be something done on the city's dime alone. I'd like to see cooperation with business, perhaps even other municipalities, and even a fundraising drive to raise money from individuals.

Update: The Review article is online now.

Labels: events, media, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 6/30/2010 05:13:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Maplewood is running an online survey about parks and recreation in our city. Input is sought from both residents and non-residents. If you can, please take a moment to follow the link and fill out the survey. Thank you!

Labels: parks

Posted by John Nephew at 4/19/2010 09:39:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

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: development, environment, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 3/16/2010 01:35:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

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: environment, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 1/27/2010 04:09:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

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: environment, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 11/30/2009 10:37:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

This week's Maplewood Review covers a number of city topics, including the candidates for the primary election that is now just two weeks away. Our printed copy hasn't arrived in the mail yet, but I can see quite a few new articles on the Lillie newspaper's website.

Under the headline "Seven vie for Maplewood mayor," the newspaper's managing editor, Holly Wenzel, offers profiles of six candidates, drawn from questionnaires filled out by the candidates. One candidate, Fran Grant, did not submit a questionnaire.

All eleven city council candidates did fill out their questionnaires, and the result is another article, "11 file for 2 Maplewood council seats." Candidates Julie Binko and DelRay Rokke also make an appearance on the letters to the editor page. Rokke observes that "Maplewood’s elected leadership has been sorely lacking in the eyes of the entire metropolitan community for a number of years," a chord similar to the "not been proud of our government" comment from running mate Dave Hafner in the Review two weeks ago. Binko, whose small claims suit and its failure have gotten her attention in recent newspapers, expresses her outrage that our legislators introduced bills to fund acquisition of land for conservation in Fish Creek, and that Peter Fischer and I testified in favor of one such bill earlier this year. Another letter that touches on the election appears from resident Christeen Stone.

"Applewood trail construction reaching conclusion" discusses the sustainable trail at Applewood Park, which was the topic of an informational presentation from city staff at our August 24 council meeting. Other article topics include the city manager's spending authority and when or if issues involving councilmembers should be referred to outside agencies for investigation.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, finance, media, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 9/03/2009 06:57:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Yesterday was Johnny Appleseed Day, an annual event hosted by the Maplewood Area Historical Society at the Bruentrup Farm. MAHS events often bring some of the oldest and youngest residents of Maplewood together for fun in celebrating the community's heritage.

One tradition at Johnny Appleseed is the hayride across the Prairie Farm Preserve.


Speaking of youngest and oldest, at one point the city's brand new electric GEM car was parked next to a collector's Model T Ford from nearly a century ago.

Labels: events, parks, photos

Posted by John Nephew at 8/16/2009 10:11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

One of the items on Monday's agenda is approval of an electric GEM car for the police volunteers, to be used in patrolling city parks and trails. From what I've heard, this is a welcome response to legitimate resident concerns about safety in the wake of incidents around Lake Phalen and Beaver Lake. I saw the car myself at one of the National Night Out parties I visited, and heard positive comments there and from other residents.

The original price was under $10,000, which would not require City Council approval; but with a delivery fee added to the final bill, it wound up at $10,149. Hence it appears on Monday's consent agenda.

In a number of recent e-mails copied to the rest of the council, Councilmember Hjelle has gone on the attack against this public safety initiative. I'm not entirely sure if he's more wound up by the fact that it's electric car (and thus might be seen as environmentally friendly -- Hjelle has a tag on the bottom of his e-mails that reads "Please Print this E-mail, help save jobs," to mock people who have tags asking people to avoid unnecessary printing so as to save the environment), or if he's worried that it might divert money from his fire department. Either way, it sounds like he will pull it from the consent agenda so that he can vote against it.

Labels: parks, public safety

Posted by John Nephew at 8/08/2009 09:58:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Mayoral candidate Ken Smart addressed the city council during our truth-in-taxation hearing on December 8, 2008. He expressed concern that the city was not cutting taxes in response to the poor economy, and suggested that one way to reduce the city's budget would be to sell the Maplewood Community Center. I am told that he repeated this idea at the DFL meeting last Thursday.



Ken Smart is running as a team with city council candidates Delray Rokke and Dave Hafner.

Labels: campaign 2009, finance, parks, video

Posted by John Nephew at 8/03/2009 08:42:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Delray Rokke, one of the 2007 candidates, has decided to take another run at city council.

In the last election, I noticed that Rokke seemed to switch his position on some issues after aligning himself with Rebecca Cave and her then-majority of the council with Erik Hjelle and Diana Longrie. For example, after being a skeptic about the mayor's conservation easements (saying in his Maplewood Review profile that they should be "not encouraged"), he signed on to make it a central issue of his joint campaign with Cave. Here's a joint flyer later distributed by the two of them (click on the image to enlarge):


This is from Gladstone, but I know they did a number of variations on this flyer, each focused on a different neighborhood, falsely suggesting that its local park or preserve would be on the auction block if Will and I were elected.

Cave is also on the ballot again, but this time Rocky is running with a different slate. I saw at the DFL Central Committee meeting that he had produced a joint campaign flyer with Ken Smart and Dave Hafner. I'll be interested to see what his positions are with a new set of running mates.

Labels: campaign 2009, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 8/02/2009 11:02:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

City council candidate Mary Mackey is a current member of the Maplewood Parks & Recreation Commission. She applied for the commission earlier this year, and the city council interviewed her during our workshop on January 12, 2009. She was appointed at a later meeting, after all the interviews for the commission were complete.

Here is her interview:


Ms. Mackey's application and resumé were included in the 1/12/09 workshop packet (pages 3-4).

Labels: campaign 2009, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 7/31/2009 04:04:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

At the July 13th council meeting, we awarded bids for work in a couple of city parks, including resurfacing a basketball court in south Maplewood. Councilmember Hjelle suggested that we should just remove the basketball court entirely, because of the sort of people it attracts. In his own words...

Labels: council politics, parks, video

Posted by John Nephew at 7/20/2009 11:39:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Sunday Pioneer Press features an article about CoPar's property by Fish Creek in south Maplewood and the city's hopes to acquire some of the land for conservation. This follows another article in Wednesday's paper about the city's effort to extend the option to buy the land.

Labels: media, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 5/03/2009 09:06:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Yesterday morning Peter Fischer, Dewey Konewko, and I testified in favor of H.F. 2055 at the legislature. Audio of the entire meeting is available on the House web site, but it's a huge file, so I excerpted just the twenty minutes that was spent with our testimony and then follow-up questions and discussions of the committee.



I felt like it was a positive reception on the whole. The bill was “laid over for possible inclusion,” which I guess means it's moving forward and at this point still has a shot at getting Maplewood a share of the Legacy Amendment sales tax revenues that are dedicated for conservation.

Labels: environment, finance, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 4/01/2009 11:39:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Last night at our regular council meeting we talked about progress in the legislature on funding for land acquisition in the Fish Creek corridor. This afternoon the city council (and other interested parties) received an e-mail from Senator Wiger, who wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to let you know that I enjoyed the conversation the City Council had about Fish Creek during its meeting last night. I was able to watch the show on TV after getting home.

As you know, Rep. Slawik, Rep. Lillie and I have been working on legislation to purchase land along Fish Creek so that it can be preserved for future generations. We have introduced two bills that request funding in the amount of $2.4 million to purchase the land. One of the bills (SF 1821/HF 2055) requests funding from the Parks and Trails fund, while the other bill (SF 1822/HF 2054) requests funding from the Outdoor Heritage Fund. Since we received some mixed feedback on which funding route to pursue, and since the proposal could potentially be funded through either route, we introduced both proposals in the hopes that one will be considered for funding.

I will be sure to keep you updated on the status of this legislation in the Senate.

Warm Regards,

Chuck

Here are links to the status pages of the bills that Sen. Wiger mentions: SF 1821, HF 2055; SF 1822, HF 2054.

Labels: environment, finance, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 3/24/2009 04:53:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Many residents identify Maplewood's parks, trails, and open spaces as key to our community's attractiveness. Besides their inherent benefits, a well-maintained system of these assets increases the appeal and value of property in our city as a whole.

Last August the city council held a joint workshop with the Parks & Recreation Commission. A major topic of that meeting was the challenge of funding our parks.

Changing Needs

Historically, as a growing suburb, Maplewood has relied upon the Park Availability Charge, or PAC, which is charged on each unit of new development in the city. Collection of this charge is authorized by Minnesota Statutes 462.358 Subdivisions 2b and 2c. As explained by a League of Minnesota Cities brief on the subject, the statutes authorizing park dedication charges like our PAC “are premised on the assumption that new development (and not existing taxpayers) ought to pay for the additional park and recreation facilities needed to accommodate the demands created by the new development.” The statute limits the use of the funds, which “may not be used for ongoing operation or maintenance.”

As Maplewood nears full development, there are fewer opportunities for new park and recreation facilities. However, the aging of our existing facilities means a growing need to fund their repair and replacement. In the future we can expect the need for funding to grow, when the parks and trails that we have been expanding in recent years reach the point in their life when they require repair or reconstruction. Thus the nature of our park funding needs is changing, and the trend will continue. Now and in the future the city council will be worrying less about acquiring land or building new park facilities, and more about replacing deteriorated playground equipment, sports fields, and trail segments.

This growing need must be set against the realities of the budget process each year. I believe many residents would support increased funding for our parks, trails, and open space; but as our city sets its short-term priorities, it is very easy to short-change our parks when their funding is part of the general tax levy. Unlike capital projects such as street improvements that can be assessed and bonded with relative ease, capital improvements to our parks and open spaces generally must be paid for from funds on hand.

I believe Maplewood needs to look for a dedicated funding source for the maintenance and repair/replacement needs of Maplewood parks, trails, and open space.

EFF as Potential Dedicated Funding

One option we can consider is to dedicate the Electric Franchise Fee as this funding source. I think there are several reasons the EFF may be appropriate.

The EFF is collected from every electric utility customer in the city. This includes entities that are exempt from property taxes (such as private and public schools, churches, and government facilities) but that do benefit from city parks, trails and open space. The EFF is thus an existing mechanism for collecting fees from a broad base of individuals and institutions that benefit directly or indirectly from our parks, trails and open space.

There several possible ways to dedicate this funding. It could be a whole or partial dedication of the current EFF, which is 50 cents per month on residential electric customers. The EFF could be increased, with the increase (with our without part of the current EFF) being dedicated to a park, trail, and open space maintenance fund.

From the standpoint of building community support, I think the EFF would make it easier for residents to see a direct relationship between what they pay and what they receive – for example, 25 cents per month on a residential household would equate to something over $90,000 per year that would go directly to needed capital improvements to our parks system.

Using the EFF has its downside. It has been controversial in the past. It can be seen as a regressive tax: unlike property taxes, it does not have any implicit relationship to the assets of the payer or their ability to pay. It is not tax deductible as property taxes are. I opposed an increase in the EFF three years ago, when it appeared to be proposed as a way to hold down property taxes on the most valuable homes in the city and shift the burden to renters and owners of less valuable houses. In that case, however, the money was going into general city operations (it was proposed to be used for energy purposes, but that umbrella covered things like the heating bill at the community center).

Of course, every funding mechanism has its drawbacks. For example, due to fiscal disparities contributions, in order to fund parks through property taxes we actually have to levy more taxes than would actually go to parks, in order to account for the program that redistributes a portion of our property tax receipts to neighboring communities.

Next Steps

I bought this proposal to the Parks & Recreation Commission as a Visitor Presentation on March 18th in an effort to move our discussion about parks, trails and open space funding forward. The City Council and Parks Commission have already identified the need for dedicated funding for our parks system; we need to move on to explore specific ideas of how to accomplish the goal.

If the parks commission is willing to explore this idea, my hope is that they will develop a policy recommendation for the city council. I am also hoping that discussion of this idea may bring forth additional ideas of practical funding mechanisms to help us assure a safe and healthy park system that will serve our residents today and in generations to come.

Labels: finance, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 3/21/2009 10:19:00 PM | Permalink | Comments