All posts in the topic Powderhorn ice rink closed? (Short link)

From: Scott Vreeland Date: 2007 Dec 01 21:53 UTC Short link

This is budget time for the city and Park Board so I am tempted to go into
all the details of our complicated relationship to the city and how that
impacts  improvements to neighborhood parks.
The Park Board voted to keep our current service levels. The city and  the
board of estimate and taxation did not support our requests for  additional
capital or operating expenses. I would also note that NRP  funding is also
greatly
diminished. The neighborhoods have often used NRP  money to keep park
amenities that would have otherwise been cut. That  option is being eliminated.
All of this also in the context of substantial annual property tax  increases
and the local ramifications of state wide" no new taxes"  decisions.
The bottom line is that these are difficult time for both the City and Park
Board.

We will be eliminating some rinks this year. We have been discussing this
for more than a year. We have talked about cutting a rink in each district,
because system wide, rinks are very expensive, winter weather has been poor
for
skating, and there is declining use.
I am very aware that when we eliminate something that folks care about  these
are not popular decisions.

Park Board staff has made a recommendation that Brackett, Waite, Shingle
Creek, Harrison, Powderhorn and Loring are slated for closure.
I have asked for some explanation of the criteria:
Programing, site specific logistics and cost, and geographic equity were
some of the reasons.

There are two slated closures in my district, Powderhorn and  Brackett.

Because this is part of our budget process, the board has not voted on  this
yet. So it is not official, but the staff is trying to put up the rinks  they
think will be approved at our next meeting.
In order to balance our budget within constraints that are determined by  the
City Council and Mayor, we will have to raise fees and cut services. This is
not a fun time to be a Park Board Commissioner.
I don't know what the barriers are to keeping rinks viable with volunteers.
I will pursue this question with my fellow Commissioners and staff.
Having folks on Powderhorn ice with no park board staff that have typically
monitored safety issues is a concern for me.
I am aware of at least one death from someone going through the ice at
Powderhorn, but I am also aware of the great history of skating at that
location.

 For some more information about where we are in the process:
_http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=52&prid=545_
(http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=52&prid=545)
 And there will be a public hearing at our next Board Meeting on Dec.  5th.
about our budget decisions.

I hope this answers some of the questions.
Thanks,
Scott Vreeland
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
Commissioner District # 3




**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
    

From: Liz Wielinski Date: 2007 Dec 03 02:16 UTC Short link

Commissioner Vreeland says...

> We will be eliminating some rinks this year. We have been discussing
> this
> for more than a year. We have talked about cutting a rink in each
> district,
> because system wide, rinks are very expensive, winter weather has been
> poor  for
> skating, and there is declining use.
>

> There are two slated closures in my district, Powderhorn and  Brackett.

Why is that?  Why would the statement be one in each district and then
District 3 gets 2 cuts?  Maybe the Park Board needs to find that extra
bit of money by cutting something at the HQ which covers everyone that
would spread the "pain" equally?

I also noticed this little statement in the Press Release about the
budget......

>
> *         Produce Park Board events as a means to provide maximum
> financial benefit and require appropriate financial return for events
> not produced by the Park Board. - Initiatives include developing a new
> concert series and golf championship, and increasing participation in
> the Minneapolis Bike Tour.
>

For those who do not read the budget in detail the "new concert series"
proposed is planned as hiring a promoter to hold concerts on Boom
Island.  These would not be FREE concerts like at the Lake Harriet,
Minnehaha and Father Hennepin Bluffs Pavilions but regular pay to get
in the gate concerts.  I find this a bit odd because there are many
ways to get onto Boom Island other than via the road off of 8th AV NE
so how would you control the gate other that really putting up a gate?
I seem to recall that the MPRB had a concert series that one paid to
see at the former Parade Stadium.  It was not financially viable thus
the reason for demolishing the stadium.  Is there a business plan that
is available for the public to see to show us that this is a good idea?


Another budget initiative is to get rid of the under performing golf
course at Fort Snelling.  The conditions for this are tied up with the
lease for the Neiman Complex land.  I would love to see this
renegotiated with the DNR but with the State of Minnesota now showing a
$373 million shortfall do you think the DNR would be willing?  Is the
MPRB willing to walk away from Neiman to make them give?

Two more little things.

1) Why are the district employees listed as one category and not
separated out by district?  The districts should be divided so we can
see that there is parity in budget.

2) The MPRB has it's staff budgets listed as well and the wages and
salaries in many of the departments where the number of employees has
not changed have gone up considerably more than the 2% wage increases
contacts and board resolutions provided for ( and no , this does not
include benefits which are listed on a separate line).  Why is this?

I hope that these items come under discussion at the Board Meeting next
Wednesday.
    

www.mplsparkwatch.org