Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Parks, Minneapolis Public Schools, Density, Zoning, etc.
MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5796
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby MNdible » February 22nd, 2021, 1:36 pm

The Barr engineering report said that the limiting factor for the level of the lake is either the gas pipes just below 28th Ave or a rock weir (some rocks along the bank and across the creek, placed at an unknown time) under the 31st Ave footbridge.
OK, but on the scale of the changes that we're talking about here, it seems like both burying the gas lines deeper and removing a rock weir are things that ought to at least be on the table, since both of them are presumably man-made obstructions changing the hydrology in this area.

Scottie
City Center
Posts: 39
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:04 pm

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby Scottie » February 22nd, 2021, 1:47 pm

The Park Board claims 19 downstream obstructions in the firs 2,200 hundred feet of the creek past the course including a 10ft regional sewer interceptor on their website. Not sure how seriously they looked at the practicality of moving them though.

https://www.minneapolisparks.org/projec ... -dredging/

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2396
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby EOst » February 22nd, 2021, 1:53 pm

I was under the impression that the water on the golf course was primarily a groundwater inflow issue (because lakes here are just areas where the ground level dips below the water table), and not an issue of insufficient outlet. The Barr report concluded that "the potential lowering of Lake Hiawatha control would result in a water surface of 811.8 ft NGVD29, which is approximately one (1) foot lower than that the OHWL," which isn't enough to make a difference for the course, but would "require excavation of approximately 2,000 feet of creek channel, replacement/lowering of utility crossings under the creek bed, and the associated permitting for these activities."

Blaisdell Greenway
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 179
Joined: July 12th, 2013, 8:42 am

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby Blaisdell Greenway » February 23rd, 2021, 9:47 am

It's both (outlet + groundwater) because the course is towards the end of the Minnehaha Creek watershed. Upstream impacts in Minnetonka, SLP, Edina, Minneapolis (more hardscape, runoff, and so on) start to manifest in south Minneapolis. Not just the park/golf course but also flooded basements in Nokomis, overflow for Mother Lake and nearby environs, etc.

Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4318
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby Anondson » March 12th, 2021, 1:00 pm


twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6279
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby twincitizen » April 2nd, 2021, 4:19 pm

Here's the MPRB Superintendent's annual report: https://www.minneapolisparks.org/wp-con ... port-1.pdf

Also, the final vote on the Hiawatha Golf Master Plan is on April 7th. Sounds like it's going to be 5-4 one way or the other, up or down.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6279
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby twincitizen » April 7th, 2021, 6:14 pm

Hiawatha Golf Master Plan should have passed tonight, as the vote was 4-2 in favor (French and Severson opposed), with 2 abstentions (Vetaw and Bourn) and one absent (Hassan). However, one of the friendly amendments (by Vetaw) earlier in the discussion was to rename the clubhouse (after Solomon Hughes). It came to light (after the final vote had been taken!!) that MPRB has an existing charter rule that requires 6 affirmative votes (2/3rds) to rename real property. Given that the resolution to approve the master plan now included a renaming of property, that action raised the threshold of passage of the plan as a whole to 6 votes. After spending over an hour on this item tonight, the Park Board simply had to move on to the rest of the agenda.

This turn of events had Brad Bourn’s slimy ass written all over it. The earlier vote on Vetaw’s amendments were unanimous, so it’s pretty clear that those in favor of the plan (Cowgill, Meyer, Forney, and Musich) were not aware that the threshold for passage was backhandedly being increased to 6 votes. They got completely played by Vetaw and Bourn (Vetaw with the amendment, and Bourn clearly knowing about the 6 vote threshold, as he brought it up immediately following the vote).

Any parliamentary procedure experts know who has the authority to bring a motion to reconsider? The prevailing side, or the losing side? The person who made the motion? Are we simply stuck waiting until after the next election now to resolve this matter? Bourn and Vetaw aren’t running, so those abstentions would presumably turn into actual votes one way or the other.

seanrichardryan
IDS Center
Posts: 4007
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby seanrichardryan » April 8th, 2021, 8:52 am

Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

alexschief
Foshay Tower
Posts: 802
Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby alexschief » April 8th, 2021, 8:55 am

It always amazes me when people who agree on 90-95% of things will find that 5-10% of disagreement and use it to completely destroy their relationship, and the Minneapolis Park Board seems like an institutional version of this. Inexplicable how toxic that body is.
Last edited by alexschief on April 8th, 2021, 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

seanrichardryan
IDS Center
Posts: 4007
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby seanrichardryan » April 8th, 2021, 8:56 am

Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2396
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby EOst » April 8th, 2021, 9:06 am

Any parliamentary procedure experts know who has the authority to bring a motion to reconsider? The prevailing side, or the losing side? The person who made the motion?
To my understanding this shouldn't be a problem from a parliamentary procedure standpoint. Only the prevailing side can make a motion to reconsider, and there's some ambiguity here whether the 4 count as the prevailing side--arguably, since they didn't meet the unanticipated 6-vote threshold, the 2 opposed prevailed. But especially since the motion failed, it should be possible for any member to bring forward the motion to pass the plan again, with or without the amendment (what's called "renewing the motion").

Generally speaking, motions to reconsider are only in order at the meeting where the original vote took place, and the motion exists because the rules are set up to discourage having to go over a motion over and over again at the same meeting. But votes don't bind future boards from having the same vote again at every future meeting.

amiller92
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1871
Joined: October 31st, 2014, 12:50 pm

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby amiller92 » April 8th, 2021, 9:39 am

Hiawatha Golf Master Plan should have passed tonight, as the vote was 4-2 in favor (French and Severson opposed), with 2 abstentions (Vetaw and Bourn) and one absent (Hassan). However, one of the friendly amendments (by Vetaw) earlier in the discussion was to rename the clubhouse (after Solomon Hughes). It came to light (after the final vote had been taken!!) that MPRB has an existing charter rule that requires 6 affirmative votes (2/3rds) to rename real property. Given that the resolution to approve the master plan now included a renaming of property, that action raised the threshold of passage of the plan as a whole to 6 votes. After spending over an hour on this item tonight, the Park Board simply had to move on to the rest of the agenda.

This turn of events had Brad Bourn’s slimy ass written all over it. The earlier vote on Vetaw’s amendments were unanimous, so it’s pretty clear that those in favor of the plan (Cowgill, Meyer, Forney, and Musich) were not aware that the threshold for passage was backhandedly being increased to 6 votes. They got completely played by Vetaw and Bourn (Vetaw with the amendment, and Bourn clearly knowing about the 6 vote threshold, as he brought it up immediately following the vote).

Any parliamentary procedure experts know who has the authority to bring a motion to reconsider? The prevailing side, or the losing side? The person who made the motion? Are we simply stuck waiting until after the next election now to resolve this matter? Bourn and Vetaw aren’t running, so those abstentions would presumably turn into actual votes one way or the other.
It's almost like the Park Board is insufficiently accountable to voters and therefore it's members feel free to pull this kind of underhanded, petty bullshit.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5796
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby MNdible » April 8th, 2021, 10:49 am

Totally agree. People think that all of the levels of government in Minneapolis make it more democratic, but just the opposite is true. People only have so much attention span to track all of these candidates, and as a result whoever snags the DFL endorsement typically coasts to an easy victory.

It will be interesting to see if the Strib covers this -- with the loss of the SW Journal, it seems like there's very little media coverage of the park board anymore. But TwinCitizen is right, this is exactly the kind of BS that Bourn has been getting away with for years.

schwinnletour
City Center
Posts: 41
Joined: July 27th, 2017, 9:36 am

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Postby schwinnletour » April 8th, 2021, 12:54 pm

"Park Board members make $12,438 a year plus benefits" per the Star Tribune.

https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis ... 491506101/

That may be one reason that we do not have representatives that take the job seriously?

Bourn's behavior has been strange the last 2 years or so to say the least.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests