urbanMSP

Minneapolis Park Board President Jono Cowgill vowed to resurrect a $5.1 million proposal to rebuild the Bde Maka Ska pavilion, after it was unexpectedly canceled in committee last week despite a monthslong public engagement process and tens of thousands of dollars spent.

Park Board staff recently presented plans to replace the former site of Lola's on the Lake, which had been one of the park system's most popular attractions before burning down in a $2 million hookah fire in 2019.

The new pavilion would be built in the same spot on the northeast side of the lake with a large vendor hall, all-gender bathroom, performance nook and steps leading into the water. The project had been pitched to seven neighborhood organizations. More than 500 people responded to an online survey.

But the project died in planning committee on May 5 when Commissioner Meg Forney objected to the proposed location.

I would request more effort to call it Bde Mka Ska. Not trying to cancel, just stating a desire.

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.