John Nephew

Council Corner Conversation Continued

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:48:00 +0000

We didn't get around to voting on it, but we had a lengthy discussion in the wee hours of the morning about my proposed resolution to suspend the Council Corner column during the election campaign season.

The people who stayed around long past midnight to address the city council on this topic were almost all opposed to the resolution. I was amazed that a recurrent theme was their mistaken belief that suspending the Council Corner would be a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. (There seems to be confusion about the meaning of "free" as in "unrestricted" versus "paid for by someone else," i.e., taxpayers.) One resident called my resolution "censorship," and compared it to Russia. I think I remember another speaker even suggesting that the city should be required to mail a letter on behalf of the mayor to all residents of Maplewood, at taxpayer expense, if she wished to during the election campaign.

Since some people considered it unthinkable that government would not fund currently elected officials' communications during their reelection campaigns, I thought it might be instructive to look at the franking privilege for members of the United States Congress.

Specifically, Congress has set rules for itself to prohibit taxpayer-funded mailings during election campaigns (quoting a 2007 Congressional Research Service document):

Senators are currently restricted from mass mailing during the 60 day period prior to federal elections, and during the 60 period prior to primary elections in which they are a candidate for any public office. The restriction for Representatives is 90 days prior to federal or primary elections in which they are a candidate for any public office.

Note that this prohibition on using the franking privilege at all during a reelection campaign is in addition to the regulations on content of franked mail at any time (including a prohibition on mailings that "relate to political campaigns, political parties, biographical accounts, or holiday greetings").

If somebody really thinks this poses a constitutional problem, perhaps they should let the U.S. Congress know.

Council Corner

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:09:00 +0000

One of the items I submitted for the agenda of Monday's council meeting is a resolution that would suspend the city council column in the city's newsletter through the election campaign season. This is in response to a citizen petition submitted to the city council at our last regular meeting. (I've uploaded my agenda report to this website.)

I admit that I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I recognize that the blatant use of city resources for campaigning, as we saw in the 2007 election season, is unseemly. On the other hand, I also remember how each monthly newsletter with the writings of Longrie/Hjelle/Cave/Copeland would bring my campaign fresh volunteers and unsolicited contributions from angry residents. Residents continue to tell me about their visceral negative reactions to the mayor's cloying prose and Erik's frothing, paranoid hyperbole. So I find myself a little torn between the sense of what is proper, and the political value of giving Diana and Erik the rope with which to do her reelection campaign the most harm possible.

In any case, it seems only fair to put our citizens' request in front of the whole council for a vote. I figure the result is pretty good either way -- either we make the city newsletter less of a source of resident anger during the campaign, or the council votes down this resolution and then Erik writes a rant that's even more over-the-top than usual, which is sure to help motivate people to get out and vote against his ally, the mayor. (Assuming, of course, that he's still afraid to run for reelection himself.)

July Newsletter Column

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:24:00 +0000

I wrote the Council Corner column in the July Maplewood Monthly, which should be in homes all over the city by now. In case you missed it, I extracted the page and archived it here in my website.

Audit Timing

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:59:00 +0000

Item E1 on the tonight's (June 22) workshop agenda:

1. Receipt and Presentation of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for 2008 and Report by Auditor HLB Tautges, Redpath, LTD

I think it's worth comparing the timing for the 2008 report versus 2007. Last year we acknowledged receipt of the CAFR and report on August 11th, and formally accepted it at the August 28th continuation of the August 25th council meeting. As our auditors dryly explained in their "communication with those charged with governance," the 2007 audit "was completed later than anticipated due to a variety of factors, including an increased level of testing in response to identified risks, assistance provided with reconciling various accounts and delays in receiving the trial balance and other audit documentation."

The audit being completed a good seven weeks earlier is one measure of how the city's operations have been recovering from the damage suffered under the previous regime.

Unallotment Hits Maplewood

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:02:00 +0000

The governor has announced his "unallotment" cuts, taking back money from cities and other state budget areas in order to balance the spending bills he signed (while not signing the revenue bills the legislature also passed). The League of Minnesota Cities reports on the basics: "The 2009 cut will be computed as 3.31 percent of each city�s levy plus aid. For 2010, the percentage reduction will be increased to 7.64 percent."

According to the city-by-city information put together by the League, Maplewood will lose all of its $514,877 in expected 2009 Market Value Homestead Credit. We have no LGA to lose. For 2010, his plan is to take away all of our MVHC again, which otherwise was expected to be $566,817.

I guess the silver lining of how little aid/credits Maplewood has been getting from the state is that the governor can't take it away from us now. If you look at it on a per capita basis, the governor is taking away $14.04 per Maplewood resident this year, and $15.46 in 2010. In comparison, some our neighbors who get considerably more state aid (and whose MVHC isn't being touched because they have LGA for the governor to go after) are seeing numbers like:

North St Paul: $14.36 per capita in 2009, $33.14 in 2010
Oakdale: $11.71 in 2009, $19.54 in 2010
White Bear Lake: $8.81 in 2009, $20.34 in 2010
Saint Paul: $17.49 in 2009, $40.35 in 2010

Were I an official in some of these cities, I'd be nervous. The governor's plan cuts Oakdale's MVHC to zero, like ours, in 2010. But even with these cuts, North St Paul has another $1.7 million in Local Government Aid coming to it in 2010 ($145.75 per resident!), and their MVHC is as yet untouched. White Bear Lake will still be due more than $1.5 million in LGA ($61.81 per resident). What's to stop the state from raiding those funds if there are further declines in the state's revenue projections?

(Here's an interesting comparison, while I'm crunching these various numbers: The current per capita property tax in Maplewood averages out to $433.03, excluding MVHC. In North Saint Paul, it's $254.64. If North Saint Paul had to overnight hike its property tax to replace all of its LGA and MVHC, they would need to levy $444.64 per capita. I understand they are also a net recipient of fiscal disparities, whereas Maplewood is a net payer -- of $53.65 per resident, according to what we projected in the 2009 budget.)

Iran

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:04:00 +0000

I'm fascinated by the ongoing events in Iran. There's a lot of coverage of it in the blogosphere (and a lot more of it if you speak Farsi, which I don't), but one place that I've found that seems to be doing an especially good job of linking the diverse if limited windows into what's going on (from Twitter updates by Mousavi supporters, to BBC stories, to YouTube clips uploaded by on-the-scene observers with cell phone cameras in Tehran or Isfahan) is Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish.

Update: Another top-notch blog to look at for more meaty analysis is Juan Cole's Informed Comment.

Unallotment Again

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:19:00 +0000

It looks like the governor and legislature failed to reach any agreement on the budget last night. The governor has said he will not call a special session, but will use vetoes to block tax increases and then line item vetoes and unallotment to balance the budget unilaterally. As with the unallotment that happened at the end of last year, this will have an impact on Maplewood as the state will not deliver the previously budgeted Market Value Homestead Credit. At this point the details of MVHC unallotment are not know. I would not be surprised if, like in December, we lose it all.

The silver lining of this cloud for Maplewood is that, compared to many other cities, we get relatively little money from the state. We don't have any LGA (local government aid) to lose, for example. Still, losing MVHC is going to have a significant impact.

Levy Limits and Unintended Consequences

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:44:00 +0000

Last year, the governor and legislature passed levy limits on Minnesota cities. In simple terms, the law stated that cities could increase their tax levies by a maximum of 3.9% or the implicit price deflator (a measure of inflation for state and local governments), whichever is less. (There are other complications allowing a certain amount for population growth, exceptions for debt levies, etc.)

Last year the IPD was 6.1%, driven by factors like skyrocketing prices on petroleum, so cities were limited to 3.9% levy increases, less than the rate of inflation. But this year, the IPD has been calculated as only 0.76%, this time reflecting the falling prices of commodities and services in the global economic slowdown.

Cities could see this coming last year; inflation numbers come out every month, so it was obvious in the fall that the upcoming IPD calculation was going to be much lower than it was a year before. This set up a perverse incentive for cities -- knowing that they were not going to be allowed to keep up with inflation in their 2009 levies (to say nothing of how they knew state aid and credits would be cut as the state faced its own budgetary woes), and then that the decline in the IPD would mean even lower levy limits for the 2010 levy, the rational course of action for cities across Minnesota was to raise their levies right to the limit as a way to hedge against the future limits, especially if they didn't need to. Thus, in some cities the levy limit law may have delivered the exact opposite of its intended result -- it encouraged cities to focus on maximizing their levy increases, rather than minimizing them.

Stillwater Road News

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Mon, 04 May 2009 14:32:00 +0000

The city council received some great news about Stillwater Road on Friday. This is a proposed project for drainage and trail improvements, and is driven by residents concerned about safety in their neighborhood. We were disappointed to hear, not too long ago, that we did not get the Safe Routes to Schools grant that was hoped for (you can read more in Sen. Wiger's latest newsletter). But this was followed by the good news that we did make the cut in applying for stimulus funding for this project. It's not a certainty, but it is very, very likely now that the project will be funded.

I think Public Works Director Chuck Ahl's e-mail to the city council and other interested parties is worth sharing:

Council/Stillwater Road Residents/Area Legislators:

Our Stillwater Road Trail Improvement project was submitted for consideration of ARRA (Stimulus) Funding to the Metropolitan Council and was evaluated this week by the Technical Advisory Committee � Funding and Programming sub-Committee. Our project was one of 50 projects submitted in the metro area for a total amount of money available of $7.5 million. The TAC-Funding and Programming Committee decided to fund just 10 of the 50 projects.

I am very excited to inform you that we ranked number 6 out of the 50 proposals and Thursday late in the afternoon our project moved another step forward in the selection process! We are now reasonably confident that we will be receiving $800,000 of ARRA funding later this year for this important project. There are at least three more committee approvals necessary in the process at Met Council during the month of May before we are assured of the money, but at least we are not one of the 40 projects that did not receive funds. My experience with this process is that we are 90-95% likely to receive this funding.

While this might have been the toughest part of this project [getting the necessary ARRA funding], we now have to deliver as a �shovel-ready� project. We need to have all the plans, approvals and federal requirements completed and approved before November 13, 2009 or we lose the money. While that does not necessarily mean a construction start, it means that you have to be ready to start construction well in advance of that date. We cannot underestimate the amount of time and effort to meet all the federal requirements. I would suggest that we plan to get ready for a mid-September 2009 project start so that we do not jeopardize this amazing award of funds.

As I have mentioned before, John and Mark, as neighborhood coordinators, you have done an amazing job of moving this project along. We are going to have to rely upon your neighborhood and your efforts [again] to provide the necessary support in order to move through the federal and ARRA approval [and transparency] requirements so that we meet the project requirements.

Thanks to everyone�s efforts. If I might be so bold as to put a plug in for the City Council, too; they took a risk and funded $60,000 for the project planning that in the final analysis at Met Council, allowed this project to score the highest number of points in the �project readiness� category that allowed us to jump ahead of 5-10 other projects that were not as far along in the process.

Great News and great job by all involved!

Chuck

Fish Creek in the News

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Sun, 03 May 2009 14:06:00 +0000

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.

Credit Where Due

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:39:00 +0000

In my time observing Maplewood's city council, I've generally come to regard Diana Longrie as a mediocre lawyer at best. But when it comes to the traditional lawyerly skill of twisting language to make a statement narrowly true, while conveying a fundamentally misleading message, I have to give her credit. Her lengthy article in the latest city newsletter contains a great example:

Just last month (April 2009), Council member John Nephew brought forward his theory contending some of Maplewood�s publicly owned open spaces or parks are destined for private ownership.

Of course, the actual theory in my article was that the Mayor herself is laying groundwork to privatize city parks and open spaces, starting with her long-running scheme to put control over them in private hands via conservation easements. This theory stems, of course, from the observation that you can't really take Ms. Longrie's statements at face value, as she has once again demonstrated.

Erik's Conflicts of Interest

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:30:00 +0000

At last night's meeting, Erik Hjelle suggested that councilmembers should abstain from voting on matters affecting individuals who had given them political support (for example, by allowing lawn signs on their property) or legal campaign contributions. Obviously he was riding his favorite hobby horse, which is retaliating against people for political differences. (It seemed that his only reason for voting against the renewal of one Conditional Use Permit was that he disapproved of the applicant's political donations.)

I suggested last night that the city attorney should send the council a copy of the League of Minnesota Cities' guide on the topic of conflicts of interest. This morning Mr. Kantrud e-mailed that document to the council. I replied with a couple of follow-up questions. Below is the text of my e-mail.

Hi, Alan. Thanks for sending that. I think we may need a clearer answer, however.

As I understood his remarks, Erik was asking about two things that he thought would be conflicts of interest that should require a councilmember to abstain from voting.

The first was campaign contributions. So, for example, because Erik received campaign contributions from the Maplewood Firefighters Association (setting aside the detail that the OAH determined them to be illegal excess contributions beyond the $300 limit), the question would be: Should Erik abstain from participating in discussions and votes on any and all matters pertaining to Maplewood pay-per-call firefighters?

(Similarly, given that Frederica Musgrave was the largest individual campaign donor to Mayor Longrie's failed run in last year's 55A DFL primary, should the mayor abstain from any discussions or votes relating to Ms. Musgrave? Did she violate conflict of interest rules by participating in closed meetings related to legal strategy in Ms. Musgrave's short-lived suit against the city?)

The second was the question of political support in a more general way. For example, if an individual or organization has publicly supported a councilmember in non-financial political ways. Again to use Erik himself as an example -- since he was formally endorsed by AFSCME in 2005, should he have abstained from participation or votes on any and all matters having to do with AFSCME members, such as the reorganization in late 2006 or discussions about and votes on AFSCME contracts?

Obviously these are not the examples that Erik brought up when he was looking for ways to punish Mr. Brandt and Mr. Schreier for exercising their First Amendment rights. But I think it's important to realize that if Erik's absurdly expansive notion of "conflict of interest" has any validity, it would apply equally to Erik and his own political supporters (such as people who hosted his lawn signs) and contributors. At least, that's what I would suppose, assuming the courts do not share Mr. Hjelle's pathological conviction that rules apply only to other people and not to him.

I would be grateful if you could provide a clear answer to the council on whether (1) legal campaign contributions and (2) expressions of political support, endorsement, etc., create a conflict of interest for the elected official who received them. I'm pretty sure the answer is "no," but Erik seems to have a lot of ongoing confusion about these issues.

Finally, reading that document raised a question to me about Erik's status as both a firefighter and as a councilmember. The relevant passage (page 37) reads:

The statute remains unclear on several points, however. It does not address council positions other than the mayor. It also appears to be limited to independent, nonprofit fire departments, so city departments (whether volunteer or salaried) are not addressed. And although it outlines general criteria under which there will not be incompatibilities, there is still some vagueness regarding what functions between the two offices would be considered inconsistent.

Because each city may have a different relationship with its fire department, a city may want to get a legal opinion from its attorney or from the attorney general before allowing a councilmember to serve as a volunteer firefighter with any sort of supervisory powers.

Obviously Mr. Hjelle was on the city council before me, so perhaps this was already addressed (besides that point where he resigned the department in order to fire Mr. Fursman and then rejoined). Is there a formal opinion on the record as to whether or not Mr. Hjelle holds incompatible offices? On p. 36, the LMC document states, "However, when an official qualifies for a second and incompatible position (by taking an oath and filing a bond, if necessary), he or she automatically resigns from the first position, which then becomes vacant." If the offices are found to be incompatible, wouldn't that mean that by reapplying and being hired back as a firefighter back in 2006, Mr. Hjelle actually created a council vacancy due to automatic resignation?

Thanks for your help in understanding these issues, and I'm sure the entire council will be interested in the response.

-John Nephew, Councilmember

Maplewood Review Op/Ed

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:41:00 +0000

I wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the local weekly, the Maplewood Review, a couple weeks back. I'm rather late in providing this link to it, but thankfully, the Lillie papers keep their archives available online for a very long time.

Erik Afraid to Run?

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:39:00 +0000

I have to confess, I was a little disappointed to read in the April city newsletter that Erik Hjelle is not planning to run for reelection. But I can understand it -- if he's listened to anyone beyond the protective circle of pom-poms of his small band of loyal cheerleaders, he has probably picked up on how incredibly unpopular he is. It's only natural that he would not want to put himself out there to suffer a humiliating defeat.

Of course, I've also learned that we can't trust anything Erik says or writes. (That very same column repeats his frequent yet false claim that he has never accepted political contributions.) So I won't actually believe his promise not to run until the filing period is over in July.

Report on Consolidated Dispatch

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:42:00 +0000

Today's Pioneer Press features an article about a report on the consolidated Ramsey County dispatch system. It's interesting to read in light of some of the issues and challenges we've heard about in Maplewood with respect to the centralized dispatching system.

A Prank Gone Bad?

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:09:00 +0000

Sometimes it's easy to tell that something is a prank on the first of April. Other times it's not.

My colleague, Will Rossbach, takes the mayor to task for writing an e-mail to the House Minority Leader, opposing a bill that would fund land acquisition for conservation in the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway -- and actually opposing the very idea of buying this land from its owner.

But can we be sure that the mayor actually wrote and sent this e-mail? Even though I'm told it first appeared on websites friendly to the mayor, might it be an April Fool's joke, or an impersonation?

On March 9, we directed the city staff to work on this. The mayor even asked staff to get a written agreement from CoPar to extend the time we have to purchase the land from them. Here's the video:

At our last meeting, on March 23, the mayor herself requested that staff post information on the progress of the Fish Creek Greenway bills on the city website.

It's hard to reconcile these statements on the record with the e-mail attributed to the mayor that has been circulating.

HF 2055 Testimony

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:39:00 +0000

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.

Hearing for HF 2055

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:12:00 +0000

Tomorrow one of the Fish Creek bills gets it first committee hearing. The bill, HF 2055, will be heard most likely sometime between 9:30 and 10:00 AM by the Environment and Natural Resources Finance Division. I've been told that it should take less than 10 minutes.

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:14:00 +0000

Reading Erik's column on page 4 of the April city newsletter reminds me of a classic scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Fish Creek Bills Introduced

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:53:00 +0000

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.

Dedicated Parks Funding

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 03:19:00 +0000

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.

Erik's Bribes

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:44:00 +0000

Lately, Erik Hjelle and his pals have taken to referring to campaign contributions as "bribes." Never mind the courts that regard campaign donations as a form of constitutionally protected political expression. Apparently only people who have money of their own to spend on running for office should be allowed to do so. Erik & Co. also like to talk about how many of my campaign donors were outside of Maplewood. As I wrote back in 2007, I am proud of how well I did at fundraising, and I am pleased that I was supported by so many friends and family across the country who don't care particularly about Maplewood but just believe in me.

What's ironic about Erik's self-righteous chest thumping is that there is only one sitting member of the Maplewood City Council who has actually been fined for violating campaign finance laws. You guessed it: Erik Hjelle, who was found to have accepted campaign contributions ("bribes," I guess he would call them) over the legal limit, and to have illegally used corporate funds to pay campaign expenses, in 2005. Erik was caught up in campaign law violations again in 2007, when his "Maplewood Firefighters Association" (which was spending money to influence the election) was fined $1000 for false claims.

What are the odds that Erik will go three for three and find a way to run afoul of campaign laws again this year? Stay tuned...

Rezoning Request

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:48:00 +0000

At the last meeting of the Planning Commission, on March 3rd, one agenda item was a request for rezoning a parcel in south Maplewood. A developer has applied for a change from R-1R (rural residential) to R-1S (small lot). Staff recommended against the zoning change, and the planning commission voted (unanimously, if memory serves) to recommend that the city council deny the request.

When the council considers this matter, what kind of decision will it be? How much discretion does the council have?

The answer is, whether or not to rezone a parcel is a legislative decision and a city council is given considerable latitude in deciding what to do. (In contrast, at issue in the CoPar development was a quasi-judicial matter of whether or not the developer's conditional use permit application could be denied on the basis of a zoning ordinance that, at the time, was in conflict with our comp plan.)

The League of Minnesota Cities publishes the Zoning Guide for Cities on its website. The guide explains (p. 32):

An application for a rezoning is a request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance. When reviewing applications for re-zoning, the court has ruled that the city continues to act in a legislative capacity, even though the re-zoning application may only relate to one specific parcel owned by one individual. The existing zoning ordinance is presumed to be constitutional, and an applicant is only entitled to a change if they can demonstrate that the existing zoning is unsupported by any rational basis related to the public health, safety and welfare.

In other words, unless there is no rational basis for the existing zoning, no one is entitled to a change of zoning. All else being equal, it's up to the council to decide what best serves the interests of the community, to rezone or not to rezone.

In this specific case, however, there is a second thing that we must keep in mind. The Zoning Guide for Cities (p. 40) states that a decision on a zoning question should be accompanied by findings of fact to support the decision, and, "If the city has followed a comprehensive planning process, the findings of fact should also indicate that the decision is consistent with the city�s comprehensive plan."

The problem is, this requested rezoning is not consistent with our comp plan. R-1S zoning allows for lots as small as 7,500 square feet; the current comp plan guides this land with parcels no smaller than 10,000 square feet. The pending changes to the comp plan, which came out of a lengthy process of study and public involvement over the past three years, will enact even larger minimum sizes (0.5 to 1.5 units per net acre).

Minnesota Statute 473.865 Subd. 2 decrees, "A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans." It appears to me that to do what the developer requests would violate state law, which tells us not to adopt any official control (such as this zoning map change) that conflicts with our comp plan.

Clearly the Planning Commission was right to recommend denial of this proposed zoning change.

Lawsuit Dismissed

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:43:00 +0000

We just got word that the lawsuit, Musgrave v. Nephew et al., was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff under rule 41.01(a)(1). According to this section of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, "an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (1) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs..." This suggests that our attorneys haven't even filed an answer to the original suit, which is a good thing in terms of minimizing the taxpayer dollars spent responding to this frivolous lawsuit.

It's perhaps inevitable that government will get sued now and then. I'd rather not see it happen at all, of course, but I'll take a suit that ends with the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal over the ones that result in large monetary settlements or court judgements any day.

Senate Transit Subcommittee in Maplewood

noreply@blogger.com (John Nephew) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:27:00 +0000

Tonight the Senate Transit Subcommittee is holding a community meeting in Maplewood, in our City Council chambers, to get input from the public on our state's transit budget. The meeting is scheduled to take place from 6:30 to 8:30 PM.