All posts in the topic Nicollet Island Pavilion, MPRB Financial Statements (Short link)
Summary
- There are 16 posts — by 7 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Liz Wielinski at Sep 26 03:04 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Bill Kahn (D) | IMG_0098.jpg | Sep 25 19:56 UTC |
| Bill Kahn (D) | IMG_0091.jpg IMG_0092.jpg IMG_0093.jpg IMG_0094.jpg IMG_0095.jpg IMG_0096.jpg IMG_0097.jpg | Sep 25 20:17 UTC |
Scott Russell posted a story about the private use of the Nicollet Island Pavilion at the TC Daily Planet. See Nicollet Island: Cash cow or public park? http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2008/09/18/nicollet-island-cash-cow-or-public-park.html I posted a comment to Mr. Russell's article that I would like to share with this list (below.) Park Board staff proclaims that the contract with the private vendor, Mintahoe, is a good deal for the public because Mintahoe has spent over $1 million for remodeling and furnishing the Pavilion. The million dollars may be true - but there is no way for citizens to verify this for what Mintahoe, a private for-profit corporation, has spent is not public information. Knowing the building, I couldn't see where $1 million in permanent improvements could have been spent. Public funds were used to rehab the Pavilion, a historic building, in the 1980s. So, I put in a data practices request to the Park Board and learned that the book value of the 2002-2003 rehab was about $408,000. My best guess is that the Park Board invested about a quarter of a million in the building to get Mintahoe into the Pavilion and that Mintahoe invested something less. These costs were primarily to winterize the building - an insulated roof (MPRB), asbestos abatement (MPRB), a new boiler and new doors and windows (Mintahoe). A lot of electrical work was done including adding something like 40-50 new circuits. These might help out a caterer/event center but they are not really needed for the Pavilion's public purposes: picnic shelter, rest rooms, drinking fountain. MPRB staff also claimed that the Pavilion generated $400,000 a year for the Park Board. Liz W. of Park Watch left a comment rebutting this - and Liz is correct. For example, in 2007, the Park Board shows net income $271,352 from "Nicollet Island." It's not clear if this is Pavilion income alone or Pavilion and Nicollet Island Inn income. Whatever, this money does not go to our neighborhood parks or forestry for the Enterprise Fund surpluses are dedicated to paying for Ft Snelling Neiman. Debt service at Ft Snelling Neiman is just over $1 million a year and in 2007, the MPRB Enterprise Fund operations had a net surplus (profit) of about $750,000. Not enough to cover debt service at Ft Snelling Neiman but a very good year for enterprise operations. The MPRB 2007 audited financial statements have been recently posted online at http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=768 Park Board Enterprise operations have increased net income (profit) by $350,000 since 2004. If the MPRB increases enterprise operations by another 50% - with higher user fees, more bar/restaurants in the parks, more rentals, and especially the lucrative parking operatons and vending machines, MPRB net profits from earned income enterprises might actually cover debt service at Ft Snelling Nieman. (Upcoming: the MPRB contract with Coca Cola recently expired so the Park Board may put out an rfp for another beverage vending machine contract. The vending machines generate a good net profit for the MPRB - in the low six figures. Yet, Commissioners are increasingly talking about their desire to help reduce childhood obesity. This objective has sometimes been the reason behind a policy or operations decisions. Soda pop is a well-recognized contributor to childhood and teen obesity. At the same time, the soda pop income is needed to make payments on the Ft Snelling Neiman bonds. Will the Park Board go back to telling kids to drink free water in the parks - and so fight childhood obesity? Or will the lucrative vending machine income lead the Park Board to continue offering empty calories that contribute to childhood obesity? Stay tuned - the Coca Cola contract expired in August.) If 500 athletes, unduplicated count, use the ball and soccer fields out at Neiman, then the seasonal cost per athlete is over $2,000. If 1000 athletes are using those fields, then the cost drops to $1000+ per athlete per season. I wonder how this compares to busy fields like those at Pearl and Bryn Mawr. Or what the per athlete cost is for soccer, football, all varieties of baseball, and hockey. For reasons I don't understand, these costs and other program costs are never discussed in detail at Park Board meetings. Sorry for meandering. Here is my comment on Mr. Russell's story: Saying that Mintahoe has invested $1 million at the Nicollet Island Pavilion overstates the public benefit of Pavilion improvements. Per Data Practices Request AAA135 – Nicollet Island Pavilion Book Value: “The Nicollet Island Pavilion was renovated and the amount of the renovation was capitalized on 12/31/2003. This improvement was capitalized in the enterprise fund which records fixed assets as well as straight line depreciation.” The remodeling was valued at $470,766 and annual depreciation expense is $15,692. Book value of the Pavilion at the end of 2007 was $407,997. The Pavilion is not worth $1 million more because of Mintahoe expenditures. I don’t know what improvements were capitalized but in 2002, the MPRB and its roofing contractor applied for $252,641 in building and remodeling permits at the Pavilion. See Minneapolis PropertyInfo db, 40 Power Street, 2002 Inspections Permits. The Park Board also expanded one parking lot and built another for Mintahoe. This work is not reflected in the city permit database. The budget for Pavilion parking lot work was $110,700. Additionally, the Park Board spent $25,228 to contract with a consultant to manage the Pavilion improvements. Shawne FitzGerald Volunteer researcher for Park Watch
Shawne FitzGerald wrote:
> Debt service at Ft Snelling Neiman is just over $1 million a
> year and in 2007, the MPRB Enterprise Fund operations had a net surplus
> (profit) of about $750,000.
Correction: actual MPRB net income from the Enterprise Fund was $706,484.
Don't want to waste a whole post with a correction so here is food for
thought:
In 2007, the MPRB received and spent about $90 million dollars -
including capital projects. In this amount, total Enterprise Fund gross
income was $12,460,448. This number is sort of incredible - this is
what folks paid for golf, parking, soda, rec fees etc. This is part of
what folks paid at restaurants and cruise boats on Park Board land.
Still, as hard as the Park Board has tried, net income (profit) was only
$706,484.
Let's pay for some of this stuff through taxes and not fees. In 2007,
the MPRB charged about 700,000 for parking and the net was under
$500,000. So, for about $2 more a year, per capita, we could go back to
free parking on parkland (except where very cheap meters are needed to
free up parking spaces every few hours). For an extra $4-$6 per average
household, we could go back to free parking in our parks - and the Park
Board would have more money. We could take down signs and pull out some
meters - get rid of some visual clutter in the parks.
It would cost about $2 per capita a year to get soda pop vending
machines out of our parks. Groups like teams could still sell soda in
the park and keep all the money - instead of Coca Cola getting a major
cut. Maybe we could steer the kids to selling fruit juice and fruit.
This could be our personal contribution to fighting childhood, teen, and
adult obesity. Again, the Park Board would have more money. For less
than $1 per year per capita, we could return the Nicollet Island
Pavilion and ampitheater to public use - again the Park Board would have
more money.
I am up to $5 per capita - for this, we could restore the wonderful
Nicollet Island picnic pavilion to public use, take back Bicentennial
Park for plays and concerts (maybe acoustic so not to bother the
neighbors), return to free parking at sites like Eloise Butler, the
Stevens House Museum and the Peace Garden. Plus, get rid of vending
machines and do a little bit to prevent obesity. We would be happy to
pay this - on top of the regular levy to pay all other Park Board costs.
Let's take a hard look at what the Park Board really needs. Let the
Park Board be forthcoming with details not currently available. Have a
city-wide discussion about what is important and what we want to pay
for. I think property taxes would need to increase slightly - the Park
Board cut of our total property tax bill isn't great. I also think we
love our parks and the taxpayers will pay for them - as long as we know
that the money is going to our parks.
Shawne FitzGerald
Powderhorn
I have no problem paying a reasonable amount of taxes to maintain and
develop our park system - the Minneapolis park system is a wonderful
resource and I'm all for keeping it that way.
However, I don't necessarily agree with some of the specific proposals
put forward in Shawne's email.
> Let's pay for some of this stuff through taxes and not fees. In 2007,
> the MPRB charged about 700,000 for parking and the net was under
> $500,000. So, for about $2 more a year, per capita, we could go back to
> free parking on parkland (except where very cheap meters are needed to
> free up parking spaces every few hours). For an extra $4-$6 per average
> household, we could go back to free parking in our parks - and the Park
> Board would have more money. We could take down signs and pull out some
> meters - get rid of some visual clutter in the parks.
Every city park I know of is accessible by foot and bicycle and most
of them by bus and our park system was built with the philosophy of
having a park within a few blocks of almost every house in the city.
If a person wants to drive a car to get there, I think they can pay
for their own parking.
I see no reason to subsidize urban automobiles any more than I already
have to. When you look at all the free parking in the city, it must
add up to many acres if not square miles. How about taxing or
charging fees for all those non-porous parking spots and giving me the
space used for my house and garden at no charge?
If you want to make the profit margin a bit better, how about sizing
most of the parking spots for econo-cars and charging double for SUV
sized parking spots since they take more space?
Now, if you like driving to the parks and don't want to have to pay
for your spot every time, I think it would be reasonable to pay a
voluntary tax/fee and get a small sticker to put in your vehicle
window saying you have the right to park for "free" in the parks that
year.
> It would cost about $2 per capita a year to get soda pop vending
> machines out of our parks. Groups like teams could still sell soda in
> the park and keep all the money - instead of Coca Cola getting a major
> cut. Maybe we could steer the kids to selling fruit juice and fruit.
> This could be our personal contribution to fighting childhood, teen, and
> adult obesity. Again, the Park Board would have more money.
How does this give the park board more money?
I more or less like the direction of this one, but the question of how
to get a beverage if no group is currently having a fundraiser comes
to mind.
I pretty much never use vending machines so I don't know what they
sell from them. If a couple of the options aren't reasonably healthy
choices, they should be.
> For less than $1 per year per capita, we could return the Nicollet Island
> Pavilion and ampitheater to public use - again the Park Board would have
> more money.
Again, how does this give the park board more money?
Reading through the linked article, it does seem like there are some
good questions around the semi-privatization of the Pavilion and I
definitely miss Shakespeare in the Park (that was one of the civic
events that helped draw me to buy my house in North East in 2000).
If the the agreement with Mintáhoe is significantly impacting public
access, use, or events in that area of Nicollet Island, (or if it
violates the agreement with which the park board acquired the
property), it is not worth the less than $1/capita being made.
- phædrus
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:01 PM, phaedrus <mplsissues@isnt.com> wrote:
> Every city park I know of is accessible by foot and bicycle and most
> of them by bus and our park system was built with the philosophy of
> having a park within a few blocks of almost every house in the city.
> If a person wants to drive a car to get there, I think they can pay
> for their own parking.
I use the dog park down my minnehaha falls but I live in North
Minneapolis. therefore I need to drive there. I don't mind paying to
park though. Can you bring a non-service dog on the bus? Even if i
could it would take me a transfer and about 45 minutes minimum to get
where it takes me about 20 driving my one car.
> Now, if you like driving to the parks and don't want to have to pay
> for your spot every time, I think it would be reasonable to pay a
> voluntary tax/fee and get a small sticker to put in your vehicle
> window saying you have the right to park for "free" in the parks that
> year.
I had thought you can get a parking permit. I never looked into it.
> How does this give the park board more money?
Perhaps someone on the park board would know for certain but I thought
the beverage compaines put the machines in for free to get the
advertising and the wholesale profit on the stock. The park board
earns the profit from the individual can.
That's how it worked when I was in high school and filled the machine
in the locker room.
John Harris
webber-camden
At 3:01 PM -0500 9/22/08, phaedrus wrote:
Every city park I know of is accessible by foot and bicycle and most
of them by bus and our park system was built with the philosophy of
having a park within a few blocks of almost every house in the city.
If a person wants to drive a car to get there, I think they can pay
for their own parking.
Connie here:
I'm not going to get into the how-to-fund-the MPR system discussion.
I just want to point out to the blithely unaware who live in South
Minneapolis that that old refrain about "a park within six blocks of
everyone who lives in the city" is an untruth for non-South
neighborhoods. Like Como, where I live.
That paucity of park space, and total absence of parkway, on the east
side of the city's East Side is why there was a year-long effort by a
Citizen Advisory Committee (with paid consultants and a Technical
Advisory Committee of engineers and planners to assist and guide) to
find a way to put the "Missing Link" in the Grand Rounds through that
part of the East Side. Scorned by generations of Park Boards until
now. Whether it will get done depends on the political will to
provide some south-side-ish amenities for NE and SE when business and
industry have built up the land long since, and of course on the
availability of money.
So, for the 43 years I've lived in our city, I've had to use a car to
get to the river, a creek, a lake, a green pathway to stroll along.
Even the Stone Arch Bridge, and the River Road generally, is a good
hoof for Comoites.
So, pacem, all you lithe young things on two wheels, about not using
cars and parking spaces at parks.
Connie
Como, in Southeast Minneapolis
> So, for the 43 years I've lived in our city, I've had to use a car to
> get to the river, a creek, a lake, a green pathway to stroll along.
> Even the Stone Arch Bridge, and the River Road generally, is a good
> hoof for Comoites.
Having spent a good portion of my childhood growing up in the country,
my definition of "a good hoof" seems to be different than yours.
My 66 year old father who has had a knee replaced and my 62 year old
mother who recovered from breast cancer last year regularly bike the 5
miles from their house in the country to get dinner in the nearest
town. They've got a couple of 70-something friends who bike the 8
miles to their house every few Sundays for their book club. Another
one of their friends in his late 70s (who has had both knees replaced)
has pretty much stopped biking the 60 miles from Madison to come
visit, but he still does get around Madison pretty well on his
recumbent trike. He did add a battery assist to help him out with the
hills and now drives to get down to visit.
With the exception of the guy with the battery assist when he's got it
on full, I do notice that they tend to bike quite a bit slower than I
do, but that's OK. I should also note that none of these people are
as bike-oriented as I am. With the exception of my uncorrectable
legally blind father, they all have cars and use them (although the
friends from the reading group use it amazingly little - they're quite
a bit more into the environmental lifestyle than I've achieved as
they've managed to get their house to be pretty self-sustaining.)
My wife, upon returning from visiting relatives in Germany last year,
remarked about how well even the elderly ones moved and got around
even though they ate and drank vigorously. Her 80ish year old great
uncle danced her 50-something year old mother into exhaustion. The
amount they walk astounded my wife - and she walks more than I do, and
I walk a fair amount.
I think that once balance and perception start to go, having a third
wheel or a walking stick makes a lot of sense, but it is a bad idea to
give up one's mobility. Using one's body regularly in a low-impact
way - like walking, swimming, or bicycling - will make it work better
longer and keep one's quality of life higher through the geriatric
years. My wife's 89 year old grandmother still does morning
calisthenics and walks at least 2 miles a day at least 5 days a week
and moves better than many people in their 60s who have more-or-less
given up on their bodies. My 70 year old aunt moves as well as many
people in their 40s who live more sedentary lifestyles (and still
looks amazing, you'd never know she was in her 70s).
Of course, sometimes, we have accidents or unfortunate health crises
which make it hard to get around. For these times, temporary or
permanent handicapped designations are available. If one is
physically handicapped, perhaps they can get a permit at reduced or
free rate? Alternatively, I don't necessarily there is a problem
having a reasonable number of free handicapped parking spaces, I just
don't think we need to give away free general parking.
On the other hand, handicapped folks also get discounted bus access
which should give pretty good access to the parks. If it doesn't,
that should be fixed.
FWIW, my neighborhood (Sheridan) isn't all that much better off than
Como when it comes to park access. We've got the 1 block Logan park
about 4 blocks away which doesn't seem any bigger than Van Cleve Park
over in Como. Its a nice park, though, as is Van Cleve.
It _is_ less than a mile for me to get to Boom Island which is my
nearest park on the river and is closer than Como's average distance
which looks like closer to one mile, but the last chunk of Como's
route is via the fairly park-like and bike/ped friendly university
campus. If you're on the east end of Como, of course, getting around
that mess of railroad tracks is a pain in the butt -- hopefully
completing the missing link will help that a bit. Further north from
my house into NE gets a bit worse as well although the bike friendly
13th ave is a pretty nice ride and some of the proposed bike routes
improving more northern sections of NE will make things better.
As far as finishing the missing link, I'm fully in support of
finishing the Grand Rounds and thereby increasing access to the park
system by residents of Northeast and Southeast. Not to mention making
the Grand Rounds a ride that people can actually go around.
So, all in all, I'm not saying you should _have_ to walk or bike to
get to the parks.
What I am saying is this:
If you choose to partake in the "convenience" of the automobile you
should, like John Harris, be willing to pay the nominal fee to park
your car there.
There may be a few people who "have" to use cars to get there, and we
can have handicapped exceptions to help them out, but the vast
majority of people who park their cars at the parks aren't infirm or
handicapped and I think its completely reasonable to expect them to
pay a bit for the privilege of leaving their car taking up more than
100 square feet of land while they go enjoy the wonderful park system.
I think its unreasonable to expect me to pay more taxes to give them
free parking.
phaedrus wrote:
> There may be a few people who "have" to use cars to get there, and we
> can have handicapped exceptions to help them out, but the vast
> majority of people who park their cars at the parks aren't infirm or
> handicapped and I think its completely reasonable to expect them to
> pay a bit for the privilege of leaving their car taking up more than
> 100 square feet of land while they go enjoy the wonderful park system.
>
> I think its unreasonable to expect me to pay more taxes to give them
> free parking.
Jason,
The Park Board is not charging fees to implement a variety of social
policies - the Park Board is charging fees because it needs the money!
A couple ideas raised but not yet implemented: charging bicyclists to
use off road Wirth trails, charging park concertgoers admission. The
Wirth off road fees were not included in the 2008 budget because of
citizen protest - but citizens protested parking fees too. Still,
parking fees were gradually implemented, raised, and expanded over
several years.
The Park Board charges user fees for off leash dog parks and waterparks
but not for skateparks, gardens, beaches, and wading pools. The Park
Board charges adult athletes/recreationalists for courts and athletic
fields (up to $100/hr!) but not for regional park trails. The Park
Board has pretty much maxed out fees for golf, picnics, weddings,
photography, filming, buoys, boats, and docks.
If the Park Board can't raise property taxes to offset increasing
operating costs, the Park Board will expand and raise user fees. This
year, Park Board share of property taxes was allowed to increase about
4% while the City share went up 9%. In 2008, the Park Board share of
property taxes was $200 on a $200,000 house and $300 on a $300,000
house. Giving the Park Board a whopping 10% property tax increase would
cost most homeowners $30 a year or less. I believe the Park Board is
asking for a 7-8% increase for 2009. This is a relatively small amount
that could prevent more fees and possibly roll back or eliminate some
existing fees.
Property taxes are more efficient that fees because it costs the Park
Board money to collect fees - such as directly related costs, admin
oversight, and enforcement. In 2007, consumers paid the Park Board
$700,000 in parking fees yet the Park Board net income was under
$500,000. Why pay $7 to get $5 worth of government? Why not just pay
the $7 and let the Park Board cut related fee-collecting costs (so the
Park Board ends up with more money) and restore free services?
I don't want a fee-based park system - and this is the trend. I am
willing to pay taxes to keep park roads, parkways, parking lots, and
trails free. I think off-leash dog visits should be free just as on
leash dog visits are free. I think the north and northeast
waterparks/pools should be incredibly cheap with fee waivers because the
southside beaches are free. And so on. I do advocate a city-wide
discussion to talk about how much parkland and park services we are able
and willing to pay for in the longterm. I would hope that this
discussion would include equitable services, social justice and
environmental issues as reflected in Park Board budgets and financial plans.
The Park Board used to have a policy that when a small group (as opposed
to all residents) requested special services, the Park Board would
charge cost. This was reasonable. But now we are moving towards the
Park Board charging the most it can get. This has included diverting
some assets for private or promotional use so the MPRB can charge more
lucrative commercial fees.
The Board of Estimate and Taxation decides how much the Park Board can
increase its share of the property tax levy and this decision is being
made now.
Shawne FitzGerald
Powderhorn
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Shawne FitzGerald <sean@tcq.net> wrote:
> or eliminate some existing fees.
When was the last time an existing fee was eliminated?
> I am willing to pay taxes to keep park roads, parkways, parking lots, and
> trails free.
Shouldn't this read I am willing to pay more taxes and make everyone
else pay more taxes to keep park roads....
Its great that you want to pay more but why does that make it right
for everyone else to pay more? I don't see why my neighbor needs to
pay more taxes for parks so I don't have to pay a fee for the off
leash area when they don't have a dog. waterparks offer more than a
beach does and should require a fee.
Should taxes be raised so that mpls residents get free access to city
golf courses? why is that different than dog parks or parking spaces
but for the cost?
John Harris
webber-camden
On Sep 23, 2008, at 12:17 PM, phaedrus wrote:
> Of course, sometimes, we have accidents or unfortunate health crises
> which make it hard to get around. For these times, temporary or
> permanent handicapped designations are available. If one is
> physically handicapped, perhaps they can get a permit at reduced or
> free rate? Alternatively, I don't necessarily there is a problem
> having a reasonable number of free handicapped parking spaces
I'm all for leaving the car at home when using the park system. I
have the good fortune to be able to walk the mile to Lake Harriet and
shorter distances to a couple of other parks, and I can bike to many
more. However, I have trouble with the idea that only a temporary or
permanent disability makes a car acceptable transport to a park.
Consider:
1) "Formal," documented disability is not the only factor which
limits self-powered travel. Not all older folks are physical
marvels. Some people simply find it hard to make it a few blocks
under their own power. People like my mom. And some kids are too big
to be hauled/carried, yet too small to go great distances on foot or
on bike.
2) While many Mpls. residents live near *some* park, many MPRB
amenities are unique. There's only one Minnehaha Falls, and not
everyone lives within reasonable self-powered distance or within a
reasonable bus ride.
3) Some activities, such as picnics, require the hauling of enough
stuff to make automobiles necessary for all but the most die-hard.
> I just don't think we need to give away free general parking.
We should give away free parking for the reasons above, and for the
same reason we "give away" free admission: access is important, and
should be available as much as possible without regard to place of
residence, mobility, or ability to pay
Brad Peterson
Kingfield
> The Park Board is charging fees because it needs the money!
And if, like parking a car there, the service is a luxury beyond which
universal access should be expected, I see no trouble charging a fee
for it.
> charging bicyclists to use off road Wirth trails,
I've mixed feelings on this. As far as I know, a fair amount of the
maintenance of these trails is donated by volunteers from the
community of bicyclists that use them. Given that heavy use of these
trails, especially during wet weather, can degrade them requiring a
fair amount of maintenance, if the use ever started to significantly
exceed the volunteer maintenance of them, I can see a fee being put in
place - potentially to be waived for those who do volunteer work.
> charging park concertgoers admission.
There are plenty of local musicians who are willing to be paid little
enough to play these venues that I don't see a point in charging
admissions or hiring higher priced national acts. Making money from
food and drink sold at these events and using that money to pay the
bands, however, sounds pretty reasonable to me.
> The Park Board charges user fees for off leash dog parks and waterparks but
> not for skateparks, gardens, beaches, and wading pools.
I don't know enough about the off leash dog parks to comment, but it
seems to me that a waterpark has quite a bit of overhead beyond a
beach. It does seem reasonable, given the dearth of beaches in areas
other than south, to have a couple of free pools in the other areas of
town (yes, I know pools cost more than beaches, but universal access
to basic swimming facilities seems like a pretty laudable goal). Free
waterparks, though, seems a bit over the top unless they're a lot less
to run than I thought. Hey, if its as cheap as a pool that can serve
comparable numbers, and if it can serve as many as want to be there
without incurring significant additional costs, I'm up for going free
with it.
Basically, it seems to me that if a feature can only be used by a very
limited number of people at once or if more people using a feature
significantly increases the costs of providing that feature, some
degree of fee is reasonable.
If the feature is a relatively fixed cost to provide and maintain and
there seems to be no significant issue with more people wanting access
than can have access, keeping it free would seem to make sense.
I can see the argument that, with the exception of the popular places
to park, some parking places may fit the second category. To a point,
the argument has some validity. Personally, however, I think there
are so many better things that can be done with space than to fill it
with concrete or asphalt and set it aside for people to park that it
seems fair to expect those who would use it to pay for it and thereby
justify its existence.
> Property taxes are more efficient that fees because it costs the Park Board
> money to collect fees - such as directly related costs, admin oversight, and
> enforcement. In 2007, consumers paid the Park Board $700,000 in parking
> fees yet the Park Board net income was under $500,000. Why pay $7 to get $5
> worth of government? Why not just pay the $7 and let the Park Board cut
> related fee-collecting costs (so the Park Board ends up with more money) and
> restore free services?
Ahh, I see the argument.
The main difference is that the $700,000 in fees are coming from
people who choose to use the luxury services whereas the $700,000 in
property taxes are coming from everyone - whether or not we wish to
use them or even actively dislike them.
Btw, I'd like to see any public parking (including park land) anywhere
near the new stadium increased to $5/hour or more during game days to
allow those from out of county to help cover Hennepin county citizen's
expenses in building that privately owned venue. Of course, locals
with paid permits could still use them :)
> I don't want a fee-based park system - and this is the trend. I am willing
> to pay taxes to keep park roads, parkways, parking lots, and trails free. I
> think off-leash dog visits should be free just as on leash dog visits are
> free. I think the north and northeast waterparks/pools should be incredibly
> cheap with fee waivers because the southside beaches are free. And so on.
> I do advocate a city-wide discussion to talk about how much parkland and
> park services we are able and willing to pay for in the longterm. I would
> hope that this discussion would include equitable services, social justice
> and environmental issues as reflected in Park Board budgets and financial
> plans.
I see the amount we are willing and able to pay for as a relatively
fixed amount. I'd like to spend anything we have to maximize what we
have in trails, beaches, parklands, pools, and other core park
infrastructure and resources. Perhaps we can pay for a bit more via
property tax than we currently do, but if so, there are many things
that money would be better spent on than free parking. Then, if we
want to have luxury or limited access features such as parking, those
can be provided with money above and beyond what the public is willing
or able to cover by raising money with user fees.
To give an example using something I enjoy - Bicycling:
Bicycling via paved trails and parkways : Should be free.
Bike Polo on courts not being used for other reasons : Should be free.
Bicycling on unpaved trails like Theo Wirth : Depends on level of use
and cost of maintenance. The goal should be to keep it free, but this
will likely require some effort by those who wish to use the resource.
Bicycling events requiring significant setup or repair such as
cyclocross : The park system needs to get some money to cover these
costs.
Bike rental/loaner stations like we had during the RNC : Should charge
enough to cover maintenance of the program. (BTW, that was way cool
and I'd love to see a citywide system.)
- phædrus
Jason G wrote... > > There are plenty of local musicians who are willing to be paid little > enough to play these venues that I don't see a point in charging > admissions or hiring higher priced national acts. Making money from > food and drink sold at these events and using that money to pay the > bands, however, sounds pretty reasonable to me. > The 2007 audit for the MPRB shows an annual profit at the Lake Harriet concession of $16. Nope that isn't a typo. http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=768 it's on page 81 The busiest venue the MPRB has for concerts made next to no money on food/drink etc.. They are looking for a new vendor, but this was run by a experienced DQ owner and brought only $16 net to the MPRB. That isn't going to pay for many musicians. Liz Wielinski www.mplsparkwatch.org
> The 2007 audit for the MPRB shows an annual profit at the Lake Harriet > concession of $16. Nope that isn't a typo. > http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=768 it's on page 81 > The busiest venue the MPRB has for concerts made next to no money on > food/drink etc.. > They are looking for a new vendor, but this was run by a experienced DQ > owner and brought only $16 net to the MPRB. > That isn't going to pay for many musicians. *HAH* $16? That's amazing. Well, yes, unless there's some money being made by some other method (eg: one of the vendors expenses being space rental from the park board), that seems to be a rather limited degree of profit. Amazingly limited really, possibly worth looking into. While my wording wasn't completely clear, I was seeing the vending as a way to supplement the payment to bands rather than pay them completely: "> charging park concertgoers admission. There are plenty of local musicians who are willing to be paid little enough to play these venues that I don't see a point in charging admissions or hiring higher priced national acts. Making money from food and drink sold at these events and using that money to pay the bands, however, sounds pretty reasonable to me." I support paying local bands enough so that they don't lose money by showing up and I support a fair number of these events being admission free. Ditto to Shakespeare in the park type events. Using tax money to fund either of these sorts of things is certainly a better choice than using it to provide free parking. It does seem like some money should be able to be made from concessions. I was pretty surprised to see that number. $16. *heh* - phædrus
I thought I would continue experimenting with ways to get my photos
to the forum. This one was taken from a long and skinny Minneapolis
public park near where the new Grand Rounds link will go on Ridgeway
Pkwy. As a Southern California native who lived a great part of my
life in my automobile, I discovered this little strip where folks
used to fly kites, perhaps still do; there is a large prairie plant
planting there and several fast food outlets close by, so I indulge
myself with junk food and a nice view here occasionally. Maybe I'll
ride up there on the bicycle some day when it is more accessible that
way. The billboard overlooking I-35W and sunsets are a draw for some
of us. Here goes nothing; hope the server recognizes a picture this
time as I am trying something a bit different.
The following file was added to this topic:
Okay. That worked, so now I'll try for more than one. Here are a few
from the same strip of MPRB property with more light and wider angles
(sorry, they're sort of washed out). You can see the prairie
planting. Behind me are the only residents with close access to this
one without cars; they're in the Hillside Cemetery though, so they
get around less than most (next closest would be St. Anthony and
Windom Park)
The following files were added to this topic:
At 2:56 PM -0500 9/25/08, Bill Kahn wrote:
>I thought I would continue experimenting with ways to get my photos
>to the forum. This one was taken from a long and skinny Minneapolis
>public park near where the new Grand Rounds link will go on Ridgeway
>Pkwy. As a Southern California native who lived a great part of my
>life in my automobile, I discovered this little strip where folks
>used to fly kites, perhaps still do; there is a large prairie plant
>planting there and several fast food outlets close by, so I indulge
>myself with junk food and a nice view here occasionally. Maybe I'll
>ride up there on the bicycle some day when it is more accessible that
>way. The billboard overlooking I-35W and sunsets are a draw for some
>of us. Here goes nothing; hope the server recognizes a picture this
>time as I am trying something a bit different.
>
Bill,
How neat, that your photos are up and we can all see them! Good to
have these snaps of Ridgway Parkway's view-from-on-high of the
freeway and downtown.
A little history: We have Ridgway (no "e") Parkway as a result of a
1929 request from Fred Chute that the land he had donated in 1913 for
the extension of St. Anthony Parkway down to East Hennepin Ave. be
returned to him, and the parkway abandoned. He owned a gravel pit in
what was the Minneapolis Industrial Area (so designated in 1913) and
wanted to get the full use of it; much of the Industrial Area there
was marshland, but up on the bluff there was nothing but glacial
till, perfect forexpanding his business. That gravel pit would
become, by the late 1950s, the biggest in Minneapolis history.
Theodore Wirth had built the extension south of St. Anthony Parkway
with the assistance of the Armour Company of Chicago. That company
had planned huge stockyards on land it owned there and on
northeast-ward to New Brighton, but in the end decided to go to South
St. Paul with the other packing companies and better rail
connections. So Armour gave Minneapolis Parks the land for the Gross
Golf Course (formerly Armour Golf Course) and footed the bill for the
parkway between it and the cemetery Bill mentions. That part of St.
Anthony Parkway was opened for use in 1924 and continued in use until
the mid-1930s.
That extension was on the highest bluff in Minneapolis, the "river's
edge" in the late glacial age; everything else in the city, on both
sides of the Mississippi River, is much lower. The whole parkway
along the east side of the East Side offered a fantastic view of both
Twin City downtowns.
When the Park Board commissioners agreed to Chute's request--after a
number of contested public hearings and one lone commissioner's
protest--they ordered Wirth to bring the parkway back from the
southern edge of the Golf Course/Cemetery line to Stinson Boulevard,
which they again designated as parkway. The superintendent agreed
(what could he do? He had protested in the nearest thing to a
rebellion by a Superintendent from a Board decision in his tenure,
but he, and in his words, "the common good," lost out.) He did
demand, though, that he be allowed to move enough earth to shore up
the new [Ridgway] Parkway from erosion or future "digging into." So
Bill's pictures show the flat expanse on top of that east-west
Parkway that grew from Wirth's rather angry determination not to have
another businessman destroy his work.
And, even with 35W "cut" into the area in the 1960s, Ridgway Parkway
still exists up there.
Incidentally, none of the businesses on Stinson or along the south
edge of Ridgway ever paid the Park Board for the assessments always
made on "benefited property abutting the Parkway improvements." They
just ignored the bills. They were Big Time bankers, railroad men,
mill company owners, and "jobbers" and warehousmen downtown and
simply too important to be tackled by their buddies on the Park Board
for something as trifling as paying for a public amenity.
Connie
Como, in Southeast Minneapolis
Connie Wrote...
> Incidentally, none of the businesses on Stinson or along the south
> edge of Ridgway ever paid the Park Board for the assessments always
> made on "benefited property abutting the Parkway improvements." They
> just ignored the bills. They were Big Time bankers, railroad men,
> mill company owners, and "jobbers" and warehousmen downtown and
> simply too important to be tackled by their buddies on the Park Board
> for something as trifling as paying for a public amenity.
>
This still hasn't changed. Columbia Parkway , north of the golf course
and park got the old mill and overlay treatment over the last 2
summers. CP rail which is the landowner along the whole parkway either
to the north or south ( the tracks cross the parkway ) decided they
didn't have to pay their assessment either.