The 10/28/09 Star Tribune editorial titled “New energy needed on Park Board” misrepresented my position on taxes and states facts that are incorrect.

As a candidate for Park Board District 6 Commissioner, I discussed with the Strib editorial board the disparity evident in the Park system. My example was about neighborhood residents rallying together to seek funds for a historic foot bridge over Minnehaha Creek and yet there are no funds to replace a boiler in a Phillips neighborhood park building. I suggested that citizens should have the right to vote on correcting inequity in the system by considering a referendum for capital improvements for neighborhood centers. The Strib says that I am “quick to raise property taxes.” This is not a fact.

YES, I am quick to note disparity and I will be upfront with the citizens of Minneapolis that they have the right, the choice and the responsibility to consider voting on a referendum to raise their own property taxes in support of a very real and specific critical need, such as maintaining the infrastructure of our parks. Voters deciding by referendum is a more grass roots approach to taxation than deals made inside city hall.

This discussion was after I highlighted numerous opportunities to offset fiscal challenges such as hiring grant writers, partnering with mission-based agencies like Three Rivers, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Metropolitan Council and to advocate for tax reform that encourages governmental agencies to be economically sustainable and not be punished when they raise complementary funding. We need to continue crafting new paradigms of revenue generation like the Legacy Act for which the Park Board was at the helm in collaborating with multi-jurisdictions and the Park Dedication Fee that the Legislature passed some 5 years ago and yet the City has refused to bring to reality, missing significant opportunities for new revenue to come to our parks. If the revenue streams I suggested are developed, raising taxes could be avoided altogether.

For those of you who missed the District 6 Commissioner Candidate Debate on October 8th, here is the Q&A:
QUESTION #1:
What Budget Cuts Would You Make As Commissioner?
The answer is actually occurring now in Committees of the City Council that are paring down the already bare-bones budget the Park Board submitted so they can lower the Mayor’s proposed 11.3% real-estate tax hike.

What we do know is that the Park Board has received less than half of their proposed budgets for the last seven years. I am very concerned that we are down three Park Police Officers already. I am concerned that the present policy is no-new-hires as attrition naturally continues. I am concerned that the Park Superintendent’s salary is one of the lowest nation-wide of comparable cities at a time when a new hire could occur in the next term of the Board of Commissioners. I am concerned that St. Paul has already closed 40% of their recreation centers, although Minneapolis has been able to continue with 100% of their recreation centers still open and continue quality programming, though at a diminished quantity.

To me a more appropriate question is: How would you address the critical fiscal issues facing the Park Board?

• I would advocate for addressing the big picture as the recently passed Legacy Act established. With the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board at the helm, a vast coalition of common mission-based agencies collaborated in an over 10 year push to forward this legislation to the statewide ballot. It will provide $3 to $4 million dollars a year for 25 years for water quality projects in our regional parks like the Chain of Lakes. The re-do of the parking lot with a center wetlands at the south end of Lake Calhoun is made possible through these funds.

This is an example of how collaboration with mission-based agencies can leverage dollars. I will advocate for seeking more partnership opportunities.

• The Park Dedication Fee was passed by the Legislature nearly 5 years ago with our City’s Senator Linda Higgins and House Representative Frank Hornstein as a couple of the authors of the bill. This bill would obligate developers in the City of Minneapolis to either donate land from their development for public park use or pay a fee to the Minneapolis Park Board to support our public park system. This method is very common in municipalities throughout the state and the nation. It is a way of giving back to open and green space that defines the quality life and the urban livability in Minneapolis.

With eight highrises already at the north end of Lake Calhoun and another due to break ground at Knox and Lake Street, it is apparent that developers benefit from the long history of stewardship of our parks and parks have been a prime contributor of why developers seek to build in our City. It is only appropriate for developers to give back directly.

The City Council has not adopted this legislation. Presently our City Senator Scott Dibble, Senator Higgins and Representative Hornstein are working to address their concerns to actualize this. I have working relationships with these legislators and would work with them to bring this funding source to our Parks.

• The Metropolitan Council has launched a massive fundraising program of $23 million dollars to acquire lands through foundation funding like McKnight. I would advocate to hire our own grant writer to tap foundation funding.

• Support fundraising efforts, not punish them. After my fundraising committee for the Lake Harriet Bandstand raised $250,000, the City was going to “deduct” that amount from our tax revenue. To me this is poor tax policy to be punitive when there is a public effort to supplement public dollars with private dollars and thereby achieve sustainability. I would seek tax reform to incentify public entities to be sustainable.

• Enhancing our giving efforts as the Arboretum has done with programmed planned giving is a natural for our Park System to establish and I would support our Minneapolis Park Foundation to adopt similar strategies.

We need to develop non-traditional sources for support including private donations, foundation grants, earned income and other complementary fundraising revenue streams. It’s important that this effort adds to but doesn’t cause the loss of current levels of funding.

• I would advocate in the Park System when updating any building to use only sustainable methods, to be models for our zero carbon footprint and zero waste in all our facilities. With programs such as the Federal Stimulus Package, it is time to set the bar high and deliver. The cost to operate our numerous recreation centers can be reduced through prudent, thoughtful use of alternative energy and environmental building practices.

Budget cuts should not be tied to administrative salaries such as an opponent’s suggestion of a cap of no more than 105% of our City’s Mayor. This lacks an understanding that Public Administrators and Elected Public Servants are paid at two entirely different rates. The City’s present administration supports over 50 Public Administrators with salaries greater than the Mayor’s and the Chief of Police being 146%. The Superintendent of our Minneapolis Park’s salary of $139,818 is actually one of the lowest nation wide when comparing relative city size, with comparable salaries actually being above $150,000. To convey this perspective to the public and therefore to any future applicant that a potential salary is out of scale is both inappropriate and lacks an understanding that Minneapolis is one of only a handful of cities with a World Class Park System and to attract the best and brightest leadership will require a comparable salary.

The road to countering fiscal issues will come with thinking-outside-the-box perspectives and with major paradigm shifts in partnerships with mission based agencies, leverage of existing funding, establishment of sustainable practices and promotion of tax reform.

November 3rd will be the first time Minneapolis will use the voting method of ranking your candidates. I am delighted to have this method because
1) it eliminates a primary and its expense
2) it encourages more candidates to run for office and makes them all viable candidates
3) thereby encouraging more voices in our democracy
4) it encourages positive campaigns that do not alienate other candidates and their supporters
5) thereby encouraging real discussions about the issues
6) it ensures a winning candidate wins an absolute majority rather than a simple plurality and is spoiler-proof

To understand how this method works, go to www.fairvotemn.org/ or voteminneapolis.org/ or accuratedemocracy.com/c_irv.htm (from which much of this blog has been taken) Especially look at the videos–very informative. I love the MPR video (fairvote website) the best!

For the best demonstration, you can actually view your actual ballot by going to http://bit.ly/J4UxE Just put in your address and you’ll see your ballot and witness that you will have the opportunity to rank all the candidates. It is very important to rank more than one, because in case your candidate gets “dropped” your vote still can elect whoever you 2nd choice would be, or 3rd.

“The first known use of Ranked Choice Voting in a governmental election was in 1893 in Queensland, in Australia. Australians call IRV “Alternative Vote” or “Majority Preferential Voting” and use it to elect their lower house of parliament and the mayors of all their major cities. The Irish use it to elect their president and mayors.”

“Merits of IRV
Moderate candidates get a better chance to win elections. We too often see a far-right candidate lead a couple thousand zealous supporters to vote in a primary election, and so win the Republican nomination in a district that always elects that party’s nominee. A mirror image may occur in districts controlled by the Democrats. IRV can reduce the chances of that by combining the primary with the general election, greatly increasing the number of Republican voters and independents who help select their party’s representative.

The results of Instant Runoff Voting are:

• A majority winner from one election, so no winners-without-mandates and no costly runoff elections.
• Less negative campaigning, because a candidate must ask a rivals’ supporters for their 2nd choice votes.
• No hurting your first choice by ranking a 2nd, as the 2nd does not count unless the 1st choice has lost.
• No lesser-of-two-evils voting, as the voter can mark his sincere 1st choice without fear of wasting his vote. • No spoilers, as votes for minor candidates will move to each voter’s more popular choices.”