Proposal: Abolishing the MPRB

[mara]

As Jitterjepp mentioned elsewhere, the Minneapolis City Council is considering a proposal that would, among other things, abolish the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.

Read the Southwest Journal article here: http://www.swjournal.com/index.php?publication=southwest&section=81&page=152&category=69&story=13189&category=69

The Charter Committee received the proposal from City Council Members Ostrow, Remington, and Samuels at its February meeting and put it on the agenda for the March meeting where they will also be considering whether to hold public hearings about the proposed amendments.

[guest_s]

Very interesting.

[kabbie_cache]

What effect would this have on trails ?

[mara]

What effect would this have on trails ?

That's a very good question and what makes this something to which we should be paying close attention.

Should the proposal succeed, I honestly don't know what effect if would have on the trails be it negative, positive, or just different.

[jitterjepp]

I think it's a horrible idea. I'm not at all entirely happy with all the members of the MPRB but I certainly don't want the city council deciding on matters of mountain bike trails, hockey rinks, beaches, lakes,.... and I certainly don't want them selling off assets to developers to cover areas where the city has failed. We will never get that land back and there isn't anything to replace it with. Its all taken. The city council can barely do their own jobs as they are now and at every council meeting I've been to it seemed like they were in a hurry to get out of there and get home.

No way!

[werts]

is there a petition or something we can sign so they don't get rid of the park board? sadly when it comes to budget cuts, parks and rec is the first place city's cut from, which is an absolute atrocity in my opinion.

[soupboy]

I see value in homogenizing and leveraging redundant assets (PoPo, planners, etc.) but even if the remaining PRB staff were absorbed into the CC's org chart I think it would still make sense for the PRB to be a separate unit with a well defined funding mechanism and the autonomy as to how that capital is spent/invested.

I don't trust the CC to have any level of informed decision making capabilities as it relates to PRB matters.

[mtb_guy]

is there a petition or something we can sign so they don't get rid of the park board? sadly when it comes to budget cuts, parks and rec is the first place city's cut from, which is an absolute atrocity in my opinion.


Agreed. Thanks Tim!!

[mara]

is there a petition or something we can sign so they don't get rid of the park board? sadly when it comes to budget cuts, parks and rec is the first place city's cut from, which is an absolute atrocity in my opinion.

It hasn't come to that yet. The proposal is still in the hearing stages. If you're interested, this issue is on the Charter Committee's March agenda.

Pro or con, it is always a good idea for Minneapolis residents and visitors to speak out on issues that concern you. These folks are trying to make decisions in the best interest of their constituents, but they aren't mind readers.

[ryno lite]

As a Mpls. homeowner I will have to keep abreast of what is going on so that I can help support what I think is right on this issue.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods.

1. In this day and age of tight budgets, I see duplicity in things like police forces and IT departments as a total waste of money. Disadvantage: current system.

2. Honestly, we have gotten better treatment from the city council than the MPRB in the past year. Disadvantage: current system.

3. We have a wonderful park system. It is the reason I live in Mpls. I think a separate entity has done a better job making sure we maintain this system. I fear if there is a combination under the city council that our park system budget will be an easy target and our impressive park system will degrade somewhat. Advantage: current system.

Honestly, I could probably go on and on with this issue. To be honest I see some sort of hybrid being the way to accomplish cost reductions yet still protect our park resources. I think the MPRB should probably still be a functioning body, but areas like police forces, IT departments, etc. should be combined to attain cost savings. If done right, we can have our cake and eat it. Both the old system and new proposed system have flaws. Lets take the best out of both and make a good third solution!

[Wheels]

Oh, the politics ... the City and the MPRB have been battling for years. MOCA was caught in the cross-hairs last year when the MPRB used us as a pawn in the ongoing budget battles. We played our hand correctly at that time, but it really exposed the bigger riff between the two entities.

The MPRB is an independent agency under the archaic City Constitution - but their budgets are still approved by the City Council.

I believe the real issue here is oversight - the Council can approve the budget, but the MPRB operates as an independant entity - so the City can only dictate the dollars, beyond that they have little or no control over how the MPRB operates.

Citizens have been caught in the cross-fire too often, there needs to be a fix to this arrangement. I don't think Minneapolis founders ever anticipated the success of the Parks program - the MPRB is now a integral component in the logistics and design of city resources - yet the Council has no say in how they integrate. It's an obvious problem.

This creates a void when it comes to oversight and consolidated efforts that would likely result in efficiencies where things overlap, or where bigger picture thinking is required. There are other issues as well, like the whole De lasalle issue - where the MPRB is making decisions that have affect upon the City Council - yet the council has no control, and with the strained relationship as it exists - no valid option to create synergy.

There needs to be a fix to this, the two independent agencies with one controlling the other's budget continues to create problems - and the two agencies have now become bitter enemies who habitually participate in petty and distracting behavior - like sending MOCA to a Council budget meeting as an annoyance (it backfired btw).

I see this latest move by the City Council a positive move that will likely result in a compromise that brings the structure of the two organizations into a better synergy, and better results for the residents as a whole.

Hold tight, this should be a good one. This is a greatly strained relationship that will come to crashing result due to the current budget problems facing everyone.

[ryno lite]

Great summary Shawn! It will be interesting to watch. If done right, I think many positives could come out of this, but how often do we see things done right?

[mara]

If done right, I think many positives could come out of this, but how often do we see things done right?

Hey, we've got fun, legal trails at Theo -- at least something had to have gone right in governmentland ;)

[jitterjepp]

Hey, we've got fun, legal trails at Theo -- at least something had to have gone right in governmentland ;)
I was quite skeptical of this becoming a reality five years ago. I call it good advocacy. I think that no matter what happens the people doing that will get it through and it'll keep growing.

[tedsti]

Hey, we've got fun, legal trails at Theo -- at least something had to have gone right in governmentland ;)
Most good things happen in spite of the government, not because of the government.

[mara]

I was quite skeptical of this becoming a reality five years ago. I call it good advocacy. I think that no matter what happens the people doing that will get it through and it'll keep growing.

Amen that.

[Wheels]

Hey, we've got fun, legal trails at Theo -- at least something had to have gone right in governmentland ;)

The MPRB Staff deserves the bulk of the credit as far as that goes.

[jzipfel]

Here is a thought. Reduce duplication. Any reason Three Rivers couldn't have an agreement to manage the larger parks such as Theo Wirth, the parkways, the Lakes and leave the smaller neighborhood parks to the City Council.

Three Rivers has done a pretty good job and most cities just have a Parks a Rec Dept. Why the need for a bureaucracy if all they managed was playgrounds?

[Heuy]

It iis interesting how its set-up. The infighting is ridiculous. I'm tempted to say, make them live in a small room together and make them get along.

Having two diffrent IT depatments and two different police forces is ridiculous. They need to capitalize on the efficiencies of combining that way and should be competing and chomping at the bit to make it happen.

However, I do like that the City can't waste park money on other projects. I read this and I see more politicians saying the same thing. Give me more power and I'll make it better. I hate to give the city council any more power when they seem so eager to grab control of the parks and so bummed out that they can't raise property taxes any faster.

I don't know if entirely integrating the two is such good idea. I like the check and balance of the infighting if they're going to be so power hungry.

[Heuy]

Here is a thought. Reduce duplication. Any reason Three Rivers couldn't have an agreement to manage the larger parks such as Theo Wirth, the parkways, the Lakes and leave the smaller neighborhood parks to the City Council.

Three Rivers has done a pretty good job and most cities just have a Parks a Rec Dept. Why the need for a bureaucracy if all they managed was playgrounds?


That doesn't sound like a bad idea. I'd think you'd want a full merger so that Wirth and the like would become TRPD property. Not only are we going from 3 bureacracies to two, but the two that merged do the same thing. Economies of scale.

[jitterjepp]

That doesn't sound like a bad idea. I'd think you'd want a full merger so that Wirth and the like would become TRPD property. Not only are we going from 3 bureacracies to two, but the two that merged do the same thing. Economies of scale.
I don't think it would work that way. From what I understand wirth is Golden Valley Property and is managed by MPLS by agreement. Anyone know for sure?


The largest regional park in the Minneapolis Park System, Wirth Park is 759 acres of year round recreational activities and natural treasures. The park is located west of Downtown Minneapolis, technically in Golden Valley, and features a sampling of practically everything in the Minneapolis Park System. http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=4&parkid=255

[Wheels]

Here is a thought. Reduce duplication. Any reason Three Rivers couldn't have an agreement to manage the larger parks such as Theo Wirth, the parkways, the Lakes and leave the smaller neighborhood parks to the City Council.

Three Rivers has done a pretty good job and most cities just have a Parks a Rec Dept. Why the need for a bureaucracy if all they managed was playgrounds?

Right, I'm not sure of the current arrangement - but from what I understand this arrangement is somewhat in place. The 3RPD is more integrated with the MPRB resources and assets with each passing year - I'm not clear as to delineation though.

And yes jitterjepp, the Twin Lakes/Sweeney park does fall on Golden Valley land, but the City of Mpls has a 99 year lease and is responsible for the park.

[mtb_guy]

Just my two cents (trash or treasure):

As a former employee of the MPRB and a park and recreation professional in Minnesota I will have to say that it will be a sad day if the city council tries to abolish the MPRB and take on all the responsibilities that the MPRB currently has. I know you will all notice the negative impact immediately if the MPRB was removed and the City took over maintaining all the facilities, parks, recreation centers, programs, trails(Theo), lakes, etc. etc. The MPRB does far more than any of you realize. Sure, they have their fair share of issues(every city, park district does, even Three Rivers) but they also do a lot more than people even understand or are aware of. I hope this doesn't happen and to be honest will be quite surprised if the city moves forward with this. Thinking about the city abolishing 125 years of positive history and a park and recreation system that is recognized as a model Metropolitan Park District (not neccessarily my opinion, but they have been recognized in the past) in the country would be very tough to swallow. Once its gone, its not going to come back. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence....or is it?

Also, as far as I know Council member Ostrow is not planning on running for city council again. Why is he trying to do this? Go out with a bang? He won't be around when (if) things fall apart. No big deal right?

I do agree that some changes need to be made, but I think the city council needs to reevauluate their approach to this. You all have made very good suggestions, provided good opinions and I encourage you to follow this and voice your opinions (I know you will) no matter what side you take or opinion you have.

I'm done now.;) Have a great day!

[Slimpee]

Thanks for bringing this to light. We'll have to pay close attention?

[mara]

Thanks for bringing this to light. We'll have to pay close attention?

We should always pay close attention ;) but if this goes anywhere, my guess is that it will go kicking and screaming with plenty of time for public input.

On the paying attention front, I've been searching for details on the MPRB's budget plan and can't find anything beyond vaguely worded generalities.

[Wheels]

Just my two cents (trash or treasure):

Also, as far as I know Council member Ostrow is not planning on running for city council again. Why is he trying to do this? Go out with a bang? He won't be around when (if) things fall apart. No big deal right?

I do agree that some changes need to be made, but I think the city council needs to reevauluate their approach to this. You all have made very good suggestions, provided good opinions and I encourage you to follow this and voice your opinions (I know you will) no matter what side you take or opinion you have.

I'm done now.;) Have a great day!

Good points Reed,

I don't think it makes sense either - my assumption is that this more political maneuvering, I would be very surprised to see the MPRB abolished. But I do think this will be the catalyst that finally sorts out the differences that have stagnated the relationship between them. It is much needed in my opinion.

I think the real struggle is how to keep the MPRB, but to wrestle some control from them so that the City actually has some say (and accountability mechanism) for the MPRB.

I really don't have an opinion on this, my original post was not slanted towards either entity being right or wrong - just the facts as I know them and the reasons why this is coming up now.

Still, I think all citizens of Mpls need to pay close attention to this, Mpls is known for it's Parks program - but despite the success, the current state of the relationship between the two entities needs some repair.

[torisspacedog]

Another good reason to pay attention to who we elect to those city counsel positions.

[guest_s]

More info on this from mara. See the 4 attached PDFs.

[jitterjepp]

In today's paper.

http://www.startribune.com/local/40757447.html?elr=KArks:DCiUnP::DE8c7PiUiD3aPc:_Yy c:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr