Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

[David Greene]

I'm not giving up hope that something can be done to make them more than just golf. There is a lot of non-golf space at Meadowbrook, some rearranging of the holes and I think you could run some trails around it and build out some Boardwalk around Lake Meadowbrook.

Whatever is done, we *must* connect it to the wetlands across Excelsior Blvd.! I'm really loving the idea of a regional park spanning from the golf course to around MN-7/169. If Como-Harriet can't be revived, make it a regional trail!

[mattaudio]

I had two other neighborhood meetings last night that precluded me from attending. I occasionally golf at Hiawatha, and I live a block away. That said, I think it would be irresponsible *not* to consider use other than an 18 hole golf course.

[mattaudio]

Brian Rice lobbies for the MPRB? That sours my taste on them even more... http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 81821.html

[grant1simons2]

How do we fix them though? How do the people or the city stop the MPRB?

[gpete]

Brian Rice is their in-house counsel, too. His fingerprints are all over MPRB.

[Anondson]

$110,000,000 backlog of repairs and maintenance to the parks system, not clear if that even includes the needs of the golf courses that were flooded and are still out of play. It will grow by another $46 million by 2020 if nothing is done to fill the funding mechanism for the parks board.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 81591.html

Uffda.

[David Greene]

Not one more cent to the current board who wasted hundreds of thousands on duplicative SWLRT studies. Once the board resigns or is voted out, then I'll gladly vote for a park tax increase.

I have ZERO confidence increased funding would go primarily to low-income communities or communities of color. The recent actions of this group make their preferred investment strategy clear.

[mplsjaromir]

^^^ Well said. 100% in agreement.

[RailBaronYarr]

On one hand I agree with your #hottake - the MPRB made a really stupid political decision to spend that money given that we all knew massive backlogs and plans for new parks existed. I couldn't believe they found that to be a priority given all the previous SWLRT studies done and the perception it would bring given the area's wealth. They are extremely lucky the Met Council deal included paying them back some of that cash.

OTOH.... I dunno. $110 MILLION is a LOT of maintenance backlog. A few hundred thousand spent to (in their mind) ensure one of the best parts of the park system would remain probably seemed justifiable in the grand scheme of things.

I guess from my seat a $156m maintenance funding gap through 2020 seems like a lot and maybe the park system/amenities needs to be dialed back in some places a bit *in addition to* getting new money to make up the remaining gap while also funding some of the much needed park additions to the areas of N/NE Mpls they've definitely got planned. I'm not sure how that big number shakes out between the running/biking trails used primarily by white #millennials vs. the many neighborhood parks that I (anecdotally) see heavily used by people of color/low-income. But I have to believe that not funding the maintenance will have a major impact on lower income folks, who rely on well-maintained free parks for activities more than wealthier city residents.

[MNdible]

I'd happily chip in some more money to get some properly maintained parks. I'm always jealous when I go to other cities and see their beautifully manicured flagship parks -- we've got nothing that compares to that, probably in part because our park system is geographically larger and the attention is spread too thinly.

But also, I'd argue, their state is the result of a Park Board that has been chronically mismanaged. The board has long been rife with cronyism, or makes decisions with a major chip on its shoulder vis-a-vis its relationship with City Hall.

So, I hope that we can use this process to wring some fundamental reforms out of the Park Board. For starters, no more Park Police. Deep down, I'd actually like to get rid of the elected Park Board entirely (too many layers of government means citizens don't really know what's going on unless they've got too much time on their hands). I know that will never happen, but any action that could bind the Park Board in to the rest of the City government would be a start.

[David Greene]

But I have to believe that not funding the maintenance will have a major impact on lower income folks, who rely on well-maintained free parks for activities more than wealthier city residents.

Sure, but some major moves by MPRB in the last year negatively impacted lower-income folks. People were up in arms over reduced hours at parks in such communities while other parks went unscathed, for example.

Again, I have *no* confidence increased funding would go to the right place.

[Wedgeguy]

As each week goes by I have less and less faith in the ability of this board to govern, make fiduciary decisions, and prepare for the future of the park system as a whole.

[Anondson]

The Minneapolis Parks proposals for the Meadowbrook Golf Course have been announced. Three possibilities.

A: nearly as is.
B: 18 hole golf, trail along east side, expanded lake. Meets watershed district needs.
C: 9 hole golf, two trails on east side, even larger lake and trail links. Meets watershed district needs, the golf design puts the course nearly entirely above the 100 year flood line.

The second link below is a .pdf to a presentation with each design alternative.

https://www.minneapolisparks.org/park_c ... p_2_336839

https://www.minneapolisparks.org/_asset ... tation.pdf

If you have an opinion, the Parks Board wants feedback. I'll post the maps soon as separate posts.

[mattaudio]

So, why exactly is there a line-item on my Minneapolis property tax bill (MPRB) that is partially subsidizing a money-losing golf course in St. Louis Park?

[Anondson]

Yeah.

I don't disagree, which I guess is why I voted for C, it is the least money losing option.

[Anondson]

Meadowbrook options and existing. by xeoth, on Flickr

[Anondson]

[Deadline to comment is Monday, June 1st! Please comment at this survey! https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TS7GBJF]

Here are the rest of the proposals. I believe all these proposals are what we have because the golf operations of the Park Board is involved in coming up with the options. Of the people who showed at the open houses were the neighbors (SLP, Edina, Hopkins) and the golf course patrons. People who believe that the Minneapolis' Parks Board should no longer own and operates a money losing course outside the city limits pretty much didn't show up.

Hearing from those voices the golf operations department came with these options. Could the Parks Board decide to go with Option D: Give It Away To Someone Else? *cough* Three Rivers *cough* I don't know. That's still my preferred choice (http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/envisionin ... onal-park/), maybe there is a route to give this course to government body, maybe that chance has passed for good or maybe it can become a choice when the cost of these three options are revealed and are frighteningly expensive.

Concept A. by Eric Anondson, on Flickr

Concept A with its 100-year floodzone by Eric Anondson, on Flickr

Concept B. by Eric Anondson, on Flickr

Concept B with its 100-year floodzone. by Eric Anondson, on Flickr

Concept C, a 9-hole plus 3-hole learner course. by Eric Anondson, on Flickr

Concept C with its 100-year floodzone. by Eric Anondson, on Flickr

[Daboink]

Seeing as it seems unlikely the MPRB would choose to divest itself of this land, I'd prefer option C since it will keep the costs of upkeep and repair from future flooding down while opening more land for uses more consistent with the needs and desires of the general non-golfing public.

[MNdible]

It's almost certainly going to be Option B, right?

[Anondson]

Yes. Nearly all the feedback at the May 18 meeting was that Option B leads.

The watershed district said options B and C both meet their needs for watershed purposes. FEMA said that their money for repair of facility damage will be a onetime amount, if they accept the money they will never get disaster funds ever again so the work needed to be as permanent as they could get. While A keeps the tees and putting greens out of the flood plain, the fairways were significantly still threatened by future floods. B and C moved much of the fairways out of flood threat.

Seems highly likely that option B will get picked.