For anyone looking for some light weekend reading with lots of bullet points, I've uploaded the Executive Summary prepared by the facilitator following our February 5th council/staff retreat.

Labels: council politics, events, process

Posted by John Nephew at 3/06/2010 09:03:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

On Friday, February 5th, a long overdue City Council-Management Team retreat was held all day at the fire station on Clarence Street. The purpose of the retreat was threefold: to set council direction and goals for the next 2-3 years, identify short-term priorities, and build trust and better ways of working between staff and council. While we await a written report from the retreat facilitator, I thought I'd briefly write up my own notes from the day.

In the morning, the city council reviewed the city's assets and obstacles. Using a list of goals assembled from questionnaires the council had filled out prior to the meeting, we discussed and ranked those goals. The following emerged as our top seven:

1. Re-establish Maplewood's Reputation — restore trust and respect between the citizens, staff, and elected officials, restore a positive image with our residents, the media and other government entitites

2. Good Government — Make city government transparent and accessible, and operate with an environment of efficiency and mutual respect. Welcome and encourage citizen involvement, but not let the city's path be dictated simply by the loudest and most persistent voices that show up at city meetings.

3. Parks Department — Reorganize, re-establish, revitalize; possible joint venture with neighboring communities

4. (tie) Environmental Planning — Further develop processes for “going green”; enhance and fund open space management; includes follow-up on Fish Creek commission recommendations

4. (tie) Fiscal Responsibility — Manage the city's finances and financial planning effectively, with an eye to providing stability and maximum value in the long term for our residents

6. Complete the infrastructure upgrade process

7. Redevelopment

In the afternoon, city department heads joined the retreat. Each councilmember and staff member in the retreat was asked to identify ten short-term objectives or priorities. The following items were on the list of majorities of both group (three or more councilmembers, plus six or more of the eleven management team staff):

• Maintain Quality Services
• Integration of Parks and Recreation; Parks Funding
• Economic Development
• Investment in Redevelopment
• In-depth survey of citizens
• Investment in infrastructure

With nine hours of work and discussion, there was a lot more to it than these two lists, but this provides at least some idea of the areas of consensus that emerged from the retreat. It was time well spent, and I look forward to working with my fellow councilmembers and the staff in going forward to achieve these goals and objectives.

Labels: council politics, events, process

Posted by John Nephew at 2/09/2010 11:13:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Mayor Rossbach and Councilmembers Juenemann and Llanas took their oaths of office at a special council meeting held this past Monday, January 4th. We also declared the vacancy of Mayor Rossbach's council seat, called for a special election to be held at the same time as this year's statewide primary, and discussed how to appoint a councilmember to serve in the interim.

For the interim appointment process, we decided that each councilmember will put forward the name of a qualified and willing candidate. We will ask these nominees to fill out an application or provide their resume, and we will interview them all together and discuss the appointment at a special workshop on January 12th. There was consensus that we would like to appoint someone with past city government experience, preferably a former councilmember but someone with experience serving on a city board or commission would be considered as well. The other criterion suggested by Councilmember Juenemann (and with which Councilmember Llanas agreed) was that we select someone who does not intend to run in the special election. I didn't think this was essential, but I also don't have a big objection to it and so I included it in the motion.

Ideally this process will result in an interim councilmember appointed in time to join our goal-setting retreat with staff, which we have scheduled to occur on February 5th.

Labels: campaign 2010, council politics, process

Posted by John Nephew at 1/05/2010 04:56:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Another article in last week's Maplewood Review deserves notice, particularly as it appeared on one of the inside pages of the print edition and I don't think I ever even saw it listed on the front page of their website: "Council approves handbook for city commissions." As the article notes, we voted 4-1 (Hjelle dissenting) to approve the handbook and revised policies for city boards and commissions.

Labels: media, process

Posted by John Nephew at 8/20/2009 08:18:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

We didn't get around to voting on it, but we had a lengthy discussion in the wee hours of the morning about my proposed resolution to suspend the Council Corner column during the election campaign season.

The people who stayed around long past midnight to address the city council on this topic were almost all opposed to the resolution. I was amazed that a recurrent theme was their mistaken belief that suspending the Council Corner would be a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. (There seems to be confusion about the meaning of "free" as in "unrestricted" versus "paid for by someone else," i.e., taxpayers.) One resident called my resolution "censorship," and compared it to Russia. I think I remember another speaker even suggesting that the city should be required to mail a letter on behalf of the mayor to all residents of Maplewood, at taxpayer expense, if she wished to during the election campaign.

Since some people considered it unthinkable that government would not fund currently elected officials' communications during their reelection campaigns, I thought it might be instructive to look at the franking privilege for members of the United States Congress.

Specifically, Congress has set rules for itself to prohibit taxpayer-funded mailings during election campaigns (quoting a 2007 Congressional Research Service document):

Senators are currently restricted from mass mailing during the 60 day period prior to federal elections, and during the 60 period prior to primary elections in which they are a candidate for any public office. The restriction for Representatives is 90 days prior to federal or primary elections in which they are a candidate for any public office.

Note that this prohibition on using the franking privilege at all during a reelection campaign is in addition to the regulations on content of franked mail at any time (including a prohibition on mailings that "relate to political campaigns, political parties, biographical accounts, or holiday greetings").

If somebody really thinks this poses a constitutional problem, perhaps they should let the U.S. Congress know.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, process

Posted by John Nephew at 7/17/2009 11:48:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

One of the items I submitted for the agenda of Monday's council meeting is a resolution that would suspend the city council column in the city's newsletter through the election campaign season. This is in response to a citizen petition submitted to the city council at our last regular meeting. (I've uploaded my agenda report to this website.)

I admit that I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I recognize that the blatant use of city resources for campaigning, as we saw in the 2007 election season, is unseemly. On the other hand, I also remember how each monthly newsletter with the writings of Longrie/Hjelle/Cave/Copeland would bring my campaign fresh volunteers and unsolicited contributions from angry residents. Residents continue to tell me about their visceral negative reactions to the mayor's cloying prose and Erik's frothing, paranoid hyperbole. So I find myself a little torn between the sense of what is proper, and the political value of giving Diana and Erik the rope with which to do her reelection campaign the most harm possible.

In any case, it seems only fair to put our citizens' request in front of the whole council for a vote. I figure the result is pretty good either way -- either we make the city newsletter less of a source of resident anger during the campaign, or the council votes down this resolution and then Erik writes a rant that's even more over-the-top than usual, which is sure to help motivate people to get out and vote against his ally, the mayor. (Assuming, of course, that he's still afraid to run for reelection himself.)

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, process

Posted by John Nephew at 7/08/2009 11:09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

After a bit of drama a week earlier, this past Monday the Maplewood City Council did vote to approve the contract hiring James Antonen as our new city manager. Mr. Antonen is probably en route as I type this, and we anticipate that he will be sitting in the manager's chair at this coming Monday's council meeting.

The Maplewood Review has a couple of articles up this week about how things unfolded: one about the meeting on Feb. 23 where a motion to approve the contract contingent upon acceptance of the final background check failed, and another "news flash" online story about the final approval after the completed background check was approved.

Labels: manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew at 3/05/2009 09:30:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Today the three candidates for City Manager are being interviewed over at City Hall by the two panels, one made up of residents and Maplewood business owners, the other city employees. The day's events culminate in a social reception at the Maplewood Community Center, from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm. The interviews and the social reception are open to the public, and I'd encourage members of the community to come and get a first-hand impression of the candidates.

I'm looking forward to meeting the candidates, and I hope that one of them will be the perfect fit for Maplewood's future.

Labels: events, manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew at 1/06/2009 10:51:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Last night we had a special meeting at 5:00 PM to review the resumes of a dozen semifinalists recommended to us by our consultants for the city manager search. This meeting was not in fact a closed session, as indicated on the agenda, since our attorneys informed us that there was not a basis in the Open Meeting Law for closing the meeting. Instead, to preserve private applicant data, we simply referred to each applicant by a number instead of a name.

To select finalists, each member of the council submitted a list of the applicants (by numbers) that we wished to interview. A councilmember could select all applicants, none, or any number in between. There was remarkable consensus -- two candidates were on the lists of all five of us, and another three were each on 4 of 5 lists. That gave us five candidates, the very number our consultant recommended we select as finalists. I offered a motion to name those five as our finalists; Erik Hjelle gave his second; and the motion carried unanimously.

The finalists, whose names are now public, are as follows (in alphabetical order, with their current or most recent city management position):

1. James W. Antonen, former City Manager of Davis, California
2. William P. Barlow, Village Manager of Winfield, Illinois
3. Daniel J. Donahue, former City Manager of New Hope, Minnesota
4. Stephen P. King, City Administrator of South Saint Paul, Minnesota
5. Timothy Madigan, City Administrator of Faribault, Minnesota

We also agreed unanimously on the next steps in the process. The plan is to have the finalists interviewed by our two advisory panels on January 6th or 7th. We will ask the panels to make a written report to us no later than Monday, January 12th. After reviewing the reports and interviews of the panels, we will conduct our own interviews of all five finalists later that week (most likely on January 14th).

UPDATE: The council was just informed that Mr. Barlow has accepted another job and removed himself from consideration. So, we will proceed with the four remaining finalists.

Labels: manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew at 12/16/2008 11:16:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

With the budget out of the way and the comprehensive plan sent to neighboring jurisdictions for comment, we still have a major piece of business for the council: the ongoing process to select a new city manager.

Our consultants at the PAR Group have provided to the council the resumés and applications of 12 individuals, out of at least four dozen total applicants, for our consideration in a closed meeting at Monday.

The identities of these individuals are at this point confidential. According to Minnesota Statutes § 13.43, subd. 3 (that's part of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act),

Names of applicants shall be private data except when certified as eligible for appointment to a vacancy or when applicants are considered by the appointing authority to be finalists for a position in public employment. For purposes of this subdivision, "finalist" means an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to selection.

On Monday, we will review the applications in closed session with Mr. Bernard from the PAR Group, and then select finalists for interview.

Because the identities of applicants are private data at this point, I can't say a lot about them, but I think I am not going too far by suggesting that we have a lot of impressive, well qualified choices.

Labels: manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew at 12/13/2008 10:23:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Two items on tonight's agenda will focus the council's attention on the topic of land use: Item K2, Comprehensive Plan Update, and item L4, Richie Place Subdivision Proposal on Labore Road (which involves a proposed change to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan).

In preparation for these items, I've been doing some reading this past weekend -- specifically, two Minnesota Supreme Court cases that shed light on council power and its limits when it comes to land use decisions.

In Mendota Golf, LLP, v. City of Mendota Heights (2006), the Supreme Court looked at a case where there was a conflict between the zoning and the land use plan for a golf course whose owner wanted to make it a residential development. The zoning was appropriate for this development, but the city did not want to amend its comp plan. The city was ordered to reconcile the conflict between the comp plan and the zoning -- but (unlike the original lower court ruling) the Supreme Court made it clear that how to reconcile the conflict was up to the city to decide.

Mendota Golf also made it clear that how the conflict was resolved could have further implications: "Our decision also does not foreclose Mendota Golf from asserting a regulatory takings claim if the parties cannot resolve their dispute," wrote the court.

So the upshot of this case is that a city must reconcile conflicts between zoning and the Comp Plan (such as the conflict we face on Richie Place, or the conflict in South Maplewood between the current zoning and comp plan), but courts give a city broad legislative authority to decide how to reconcile the conflict (e.g., change zoning to match the Comp Plan; change the Comp Plan to match the zoning; or change both to something else entirely). However, the court also opened the door to the possibility that some changes could result in a regulatory taking, that is, a situation where the city could be forced to compensate the landowners for regulating away the use of their land.

Last year some of these issues arose again in the case of Wensmann Realty v. Eagan (2007). This case focused on that open door to a regulatory takings claims, in a case where the city wanted to maintain an Open Space land use designation on private land to prevent a residential development. The court concluded that "a city’s denial of an application to amend its comprehensive plan to permit residential development of golf course property constitutes a regulatory taking under the Minnesota Constitution if the denial leaves no reasonable use of the property."

Considering the balance of factors to determine whether or not there is a regulatory taking, the court wrote, "The citizens of Eagan clearly value the open space that the golf course provides, but if the property owner is forced to leave the property undeveloped for the benefit of neighboring landowners without an opportunity to pursue a reasonable use of the property, the city is, in essence, asking the property owner to carry a burden that in all fairness should be borne by the entire community."

In the Wensmann case, the justices ultimately felt that the court record was insufficent to determine if in fact a taking had occurred, and so remanded the case to district court. Eagan and Wensmann subsequently worked out a compromise, which involved a referendum this fall on whether or not the city would buy the land in order to keep it as public open space.

In conclusion, I see two key guidelines when the council is considering changes to our comprehensive land use plan.

1. If there is a conflict between the comp plan and the zoning, we are obliged to reconcile that conflict. This is required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minnesota Statutes 473.865). We have legislative authority to decide how to reconcile the conflict, as long as our decision has a rational basis.
2. To avoid regulatory takings claims from landowners whose land use plan designation is changes, we need to make certain that the designation allows a reasonable use of the property. Again, a city has fairly wide latitude, since as the court writes in Wensmann, "A taking does not result simply because the property owner has been deprived of the most profitable use of the property."

Labels: development, process

Posted by John Nephew at 12/08/2008 12:15:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

I concluded my previous entry by saying that "it seems clear from the court's opinion that no one even questioned the fact the advisory committee was not subject to the Open Meeting Law."

The reason for this is simple -- it was already established case law from sixteen years earlier (Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota, 432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)).

A legislative information brief about the Open Meeting Law explains, referencing this case (p. 4):

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the open meeting law does not apply to certain types of advisory groups. In that case, a presidential search advisory committee to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents was held not to be a committee of the governing body for purposes of the open meeting law. In reaching its holding, the court pointed out that no regents were on the search committee and that the committee had no power to set policy or make a final decision.

Labels: manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew at 12/06/2008 12:38:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

At our last Council Manager Workshop, we were discussing the application of the Open Meeting Law to the citizen panels that are helping screen finalists for the position of city manager. At the meeting, Mayor Longrie cited a 2004 court case, Star Tribune et al. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, et al., to support her contention that all of the panels' deliberations -- specifically, their development of questions that they would ask the candidates in the interviews – needed to be public.

After Monday's workshop, I thought I should look up the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision and read it for myself. The mayor read aloud some sections that would seem to support her position. However, what the court was interpreting in that case was whether or not the Board of Regents itself (the university's equivalent to the city council) – not their advisory search panel – was subject to the Open Meeting Law.

In discussing the case, the court mentions a Presidential Search Advisory Committee (PSAC), which was created by the Regents to "recruit, screen and recommend candidates." And, "From those candidates recommended by the PSAC, the Regents would select finalists who would be publicly interviewed and considered by the Regents, as required by the Open Meeting Law and the Board of Regents Bylaws." In other words, the PSAC is similar to the advisory panels the Maplewood City Council has set up to help evaluate our city manager candidates.

No one questioned that the work of the PSAC was not done in public. On the contrary, the plaintiffs only raised their objections about the actions of the Board -- after the PSAC's work was done.

The mayor drew a false analogy, comparing the University of Minnesota Board of Regents with our advisory search panels. The true analogy would be between our panels and the Presidential Search Advisory Committee. And it seems clear from the court's opinion that no one even questioned the fact the advisory committee was not subject to the Open Meeting Law.

Labels: council politics, manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew at 12/05/2008 02:43:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Last week a journalism student e-mailed me with questions about the council's decision about Sterling Street, for an article she was writing for class. Following are her questions and my answers.

Q: How long have you held your position as a Council Person?

A: I was elected last fall, and sworn into office this past January.

Q: What is the rationale behind closing Sterling Street?

A: Sterling was under consideration as a street project this year. Residents along the road petitioned the council to ask that it be closed from Ripley to Larpenteur. The feasibility study prepared for the city considered closure of the road as one option as part of the road project. Staff ultimately had a neutral recommendation on whether to close or reconstruct it. The feasibility study said, "The low traffic volume and alternate access on the north end via Mary Joe Lane does not indicate a need of a through connection of this street for traffic flow purposes."

I did vote to close the road. Factors that were important to me were that the secluded stretch of road was an invitation for illicit activities (teen alcohol consumption, illegal dumping, etc.), and the section of road across the wetland area could not be properly engineered in terms of soil corrections. Thus it is not only expensive to reconstruct the street, but the soils would have limited the lifespan of the road, meaning a higher future cost as well for maintenance and replacement. Closing the road in my view was an opportunity to save taxpayer dollars and reduce a law enforcement and environmental nuisance.

Besides the taxpayers of the city at large (who pay most road reconstruction costs), consider too the property owners along the now-closed road section, who would have been assessed tens of thousands of dollars for the rebuilding of a road they do not use, in order to allow another neighborhood to keep a shortcut into North Saint Paul. If those property owners successfully challenged their assessments, arguing that their properties did not benefit from the improvement, it would have meant even more expense for the taxpayers.

Q: Even with a petition why were residents unable to gain a public hearing?

A: It's important to understand that a public hearing is a formal step in the process of a public works project. If the council intended to re-open the street, we would have been required by law to call a public hearing. I believe a public hearing would simply have repeated the arguments we heard during the discussion of the petition, and those arguments did not change the mind of the council.

State law has a lot of specifics governing street improvements. One aspect of the law is that to order an improvement, there has to be a supermajority of at least 4/5 of the city council (see Minnesota Statute 429.031 Subd. 1 (f)). At the February 25, 2008, council meeting, we had voted unanimously to close the street. After hearing the petition and extensive public comment at our September 22nd meeting (more than 3/4 of it asking that we not reopen the street), only one member of the council expressed an interest in calling a public hearing, and it was not clear that she actually would vote to reopen the street -- just that she was willing to continue the discussion.

When someone complains that residents did not get a public hearing, they may give the impression that they were refused the chance to present their views to the council. In fact the petition was on our agenda for 9/22. We received and considered the petition at that meeting, and took public comment from everyone who came forward to offer it that night. But since our minds were not changed, there was no point in repeating the exercise under the formality of a public hearing under M.S.429.

Q: Were the concerned residents notified ahead of time about the meeting that would discuss the official closing of Sterling Street?

A: I believe that the answer is "no," if by "concerned" you mean the residents who oppose the street closure. But this is because the residents opposing the street closure live in a different neighborhood than the one where the street project was occurring.

Residents in the immediate area of the improvements and closure were notified by all the usual means -- letters, neighborhood public meetings, etc. It was as a result of those notifications, of course, that they knew about the project and petitioned to ask that the road be closed. And public hearings, such as the one on Feb. 25th before our decision to close the street, have to be publicized as required by statute (two notices published in the newspaper). In addition, notice of the meetings and all of the related materials, including discussion of possible closure, were available to the public in advance of the meeting on the city's website.

Q: Is there evidence to back the claims of gun shots, dumping, and drug dealing along the street?

A: There seems to be widespread agreement that there is dumping. Even people who want the street reopened agreed that this was so, but they downplayed its scale or significance. There also seems to be agreement that it is a bit of a party spot; at our Feb. 25th meeting, the police chief stated that the police do see the evidence of it afterwards, even if they are not called out to respond to it when it's happening. Neighbors who live in the immediate area reported the gun shots and drug dealing. Some people who live in other neighborhoods, and want the street reopened, voiced skepticism about these claims, but it's not clear to how they would be in a better position to know what might go on there in the early hours of the morning, compared to people who actually live right by the area at issue.

Q: What is your opinion, should the street be closed or open?

A: I stand by the decision to close it.

Here are some links you may find useful:

2/25/08 meeting minutes (decision to close Sterling)
9/22/08 meeting minutes (receiving and discussion of petition to reopen)
Maplewood Review article

Labels: environment, process, public works

Posted by John Nephew at 10/20/2008 11:37:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

On Tuesday, September 16th, the Planning Commission will be holding another hearing on the city's Comprehensive Plan. This hearing will focus on issues in the South Leg, particularly the future land use guidelines. It looks like the commission's discussions with staff and the consultants will revolve around the question of density for the Rural/Low Density Residential land guidance category.

The issue is made more complex by the change from gross acreage to net acreage for density calculations. The terrain of that neighborhood means that there is a big difference between gross and net acreage. The report to the commissioners uses an example of one actual lot of land in the area at issue. This lot is 6.9 acres (gross), but only 2.9 net acres after slopes, wetlands, etc., are excluded. So under the old idea that the neighborhood should have two-acre lots, this land could have had 3 homes built on it. With a new standard of simply 0.5 units per net acre, it would only be able to have 1 home on it (in other words, no change from its current use with a single house).

This is a difficult policy question, and the Planning Commission will be trying to come together and make a recommendation to the city council on what to do. If you are interested in this issue -- especially if you are a south leg resident in the area where the new land use category will apply -- I strongly encourage you to attend the meeting and share your views. While I unfortunately won't be able to attend this hearing in person (I will be out of town on business), I will be paying close attention to its outcome and to all of the citizen comment that is received.

Labels: development, events, process

Posted by John Nephew at 9/12/2008 04:44:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

The upcoming Sept. 8th council meeting may have the shortest agenda yet for a regular meeting since I've been on the council. However, it has a particularly important item of business: a resolution setting the maximum tax levy for 2009.

At our last council-manager workshop, we discussed the 2009 budget and the possible levy increase. Staff told us that, under the levy limits set by the legislature and governor earlier this year, Maplewood's maximum possible total levy increase would be 9.2%. From the visitor presentations in our subsequent council meeting, it seems that some residents and commentators thought the staff was proposing a 9.2% increase in the levy. Actually, they were telling us what was the ceiling under the new law, and looking for direction from the council on where to go from there. (I think the council was unified in saying “go lower than 9.2%, please.”)

Be that as it may, you'll notice that this is a much higher number than the 3.9% cap set by the state. The reason is that the new levy limit law sets out various modifiers and exceptions. For example, debt service is outside of the limits, so we need to collect taxes to make payments on the bonds issued in the past two years. For another example, there is a modifier to account for growth in the city's tax base from new construction.

The law says that we must set our maximum levy by September 15th. In December, we will set the final levy, after the Truth in Taxation hearing. The final levy number can be lower than the one we set at our meeting on Monday, but not higher. As we move further along in the budget process, the council will be able to weigh its priorities in terms of spending for 2009 and balancing those needs against taxes and fees.

As you can see from the relevant item in the council packet, the staff took our input at the workshop and came up with a proposed maximum levy of $16,481,820, which in total represents a 6.0% increase over the 2008 levy.

Labels: finance, process

Posted by John Nephew at 9/07/2008 09:41:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Last week I mentioned that I was attending the League of Minnesota Cities annual conference in Rochester. But I should add that I was not the only Maplewood representative there -- in fact, 80% of the council attended (Will Rossbach, Kathy Juenemann, Diana Longrie, and me).

I think this is a very good thing. Part of the value of the conference were the round-tables and seminars (I attended ones on such topics as city government ethics, how to involve younger people in city government, and the laws that define and govern public purpose expenditures for cities). A bigger value, as I've found to be true of private sector conventions, is the networking. It was a chance to meet peers in other cities, learn about what issues they are facing, get ideas that may be adapted to our city, and so on. There was also a room of exhibitors who offer goods and services to cities -- architects, engineers, accountants, and other consultants, for example -- and that was an opportunity to meet some new people and also touch base with some who already work with Maplewood. And you never know when an acquaintanceship struck at a conference may provide just the connection you need sometime in the future.

In Maplewood's particular situation, as we are moving ahead with our city manager search, I think it was especially good to have four of us visible at the conference. I certainly received numerous questions about how things are going, and particularly about the manager search, and was pleased to be able to tell people that at our last meeting we had approved an RFP to send out to search firms. A couple of folks commented to me that they knew people who were interested in the position. Every positive impression we made in Rochester may encourage someone to apply, and the more and better candidates we get, the better for Maplewood!

Update: Will Rossbach talks about the LMC conference on his website; the LMC itself provides a "post-game" report.

Labels: process

Posted by John Nephew at 6/17/2008 05:11:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

It's difficult to overstate the importance of the "comp plan" for city planning and the related recommendations and decisions made by city staff the the city council. In the Twin Cities metro area, Minnesota state law has given a special role to the comp plan. The comp plan not only involves our vision for our community, but the update process engages neighboring communities and political subdivisions, so that development will occur in a way that is mindful of regional needs.

The City of Maplewood is hosting an open house for the public to review and comment on the proposed 2008 update to our Comprehensive Plan. It will take place at the Maplewood Community Center (2100 White Bear Ave.) on Thursday, May 22, from 6 to 8 PM.

Labels: development, events, process

Posted by John Nephew at 5/18/2008 01:42:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Monday night's special meeting about the proposed CoPar settlement went late into the night, and the end result was tabling action until next week. While that may seem like a lot of sound and fury that signified nothing in the end, I think we may actually be on the verge of a breakthrough. For one thing, this may have been the first time the developer could directly witness the council discussing the settlement-related issues and identifying our individual concerns, without having it mediated by city staff and attorneys on both sides.

As I wrote in this blog two months ago, my chief concern in a settlement outcome has been to open the door for public ownership of land south of Fish Creek. When I wrote at that time, I posed it specifically in terms of a referendum, but I have become increasingly optimistic that there are other potential funding sources to explore as well. A letter delivered to us Monday evening from the Friends of the Mississippi River amplifies my optimism, as they offer their "assistance as a partner with the City and area stakeholders in helping to protect the land around Fish Creek as a natural and open space."

Some on the council may be cool to the idea of a bonding referendum. As a result, they may be reluctant to state unequivocal support for the conservation goal, out of a fear that it could imply their endorsement of city borrowing and spending. I can see how a politician might not want to face a choice between support of the environment and opposition to taxes. On the bright side, at least there seems to be acceptance of the conservation idea if money comes from somewhere else.

Labels: development, environment, process

Posted by John Nephew at 5/08/2008 01:09:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

As I discussed in my last entry, if we go to court in the CoPar suit, a judge will determine whether the city, exercising quasi-judicial authority, was arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious in deciding not to approve CoPar's conditional use permit application.

Many people who look at the CoPar situation wonder how the city's decision in September 2006 could possibly be called arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. The R-1(R) zoning requires lots at least 2 acres in size; CoPar's proposal had smaller lots; therefore it was turned down because it did not comply with the zoning regulations. What's the matter with expecting people to follow the rules? And why would the developer think they could build more houses on that land in the first place?

The problem is that Maplewood's zoning and our comprehensive plan on this parcel do not agree with one another -- and in Minnesota, the comprehensive plan trumps zoning.


First of all, the problems with Maplewood's comp plan. The southern portion of CoPar's property is guided as "R-1."

On page 30 of the Comp Plan, we are told, "Table 5 (on page 33) shows the maximum number of people per gross acre allowed . . . If someone wants to know how many units of a certain type of dwelling they can build, they should use Table 5." Unfortunately, Table 5 on page 33 does not specifically mention the R-1 land use category. It does say that, for "Single Dwelling," the city expects 2.9 people per unit. It also seems to cross reference "Single Dwelling" with the R-3L and R-3M land uses for 4.1 and 4.6 units per acre, respectively -- but those are multiple dwelling land uses. This makes no sense. Maybe it means that R-1 can have up to 4.1 or 4.6 units per acre, if there are some kind of headers missing from the right columns of the table that would clarify what they mean?

On page 32 of the comp plan, there is a much more clear listing of the land use categories. Under residential land use, it specifies that R-1 means "Single Dwelling (10,000-square-foot lot areas)." In other words, roughly 4.3 units per acre.

The Residential Land Uses has three categories of "Residential Estate" uses (RE-20, RE-30, and RE-40), that do specify larger lots (of 20/30/40 thousand square feet each, respectively). If larger lots were intended, why wasn't the land guided as one of these?

Also the R-1(R) zoning ordinance mentions land where municipal sanitary sewer and water service are not foreseen, thus requiring larger lots for septic systems. If a developer is willing to install sewer and water, are the large lots still necessary, given that the comp plan allows for higher densities under the R-1 land use?

So we appear to have a problem between the comp plan (lots as small as 10,000 square feet) and zoning (lots no less than 2 acres, or 87,120 square feet) on this parcel. Which can the developer -- or the neighboring residents -- rely on?


Unfortunately for Maplewood, the law is quite clear: If there's a disagreement between the Comp Plan and the zoning controls, the comp plan wins.

In several places, the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act suggests that the Comprehensive Plan outranks zoning and other official controls. For example:

473.865 ADOPTION; CONFLICTS, AMENDMENT OF CONTROLS, DEVICES.
Subdivision 1. Control copies to [met] council. Each local governmental unit shall adopt official controls as described in its adopted comprehensive plan and shall submit copies of the official controls to the council within 30 days following adoption thereof, for information purposes only.
Subd. 2. No conflict with plans. A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans.
Subd. 3. Amendments. If an official control conflicts with a comprehensive plan as the result of an amendment to the plan, the official control shall be amended by the unit within nine months following the amendment to the plan so as to not conflict with the amended comprehensive plan.

In Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability (Brookings Institution Press, 1997), former Minnesota legislator Myron Orfield discusses the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act, which he actually introduced. He writes (p. 126):

In terms of enforcement, the Land Planning Act provided explicit authority for both the Met Council and interested citizens to sue to ensure that the Development Guide was followed. It reversed the so-called "Merriam Amendment," which had given local zoning laws precedence over comprehensive plans.

The language of the statute can be confusing sometimes to those of us who are not lawyers, but I think Mr. Orfield's words cut through the legalese of the Act to make his intent as its author clear. He intended to reverse the Merriam Amendment, and to give comprehensive plans precedence over zoning.

Usually developers have been on the other side of this issue in their lawsuits (as in Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, when the zoning was less restrictive than the comp plan; the developer sued to force the city to change the comp plan to match the zoning, and the Minnesota Supreme Court sided with the city). Developers know very well to look at the comp plan first, and property lawyers advise their clients to "rely only on the comprehensive plan’s use designation."


At the Planning Commission public hearing and in e-mails from residents since then, I've heard many folks who oppose the development asking that we go to court and trust that the judge will rule in our favor. Perhaps, some have suggested, this will be the test case to overturn the rule of comp plan over zoning.

If we go to court and hope to win, I think we need to be very clear on what we will be trying to persuade the judge to do. We not only will ask her to overturn precedents from previous court cases. We will want her to overturn the law itself, or somehow interpret it in a way directly contrary to the explicit intent of the legislators who wrote it.

While I'm not a lawyer, it seems to me that this is a pretty slim hope on which to pin the future of this land that our community values so highly.

Labels: development, process

Posted by John Nephew at 5/04/2008 05:29:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Tomorrow we have to make a decision on a proposed settlement of the CoPar litigation. Like the rest of the council, I've spent an enormous amount of time studying this issue and searching for the best course of action. I think if I tried to write about all the aspects of this situation, this would be a very long entry, and I probably would not be done writing it before tomorrow night's meeting.

For whatever it's worth, I did want to spend some time writing about the legal issues of the case, as best as I have been able to understand them.

CoPar's application in 2006 was for a conditional use permit. This determined the way that the city council was allowed to evaluate the application. In training seminars sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities, I've several times encountered the following diagram. (This particular version comes from "Land Use Issues Presentation: Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinances.")
On the bottom of the pyramid, a city council makes broad-brush decisions -- such as the Comp Plan to guide the development of the community over decades to come. When you get to the narrow top of the pyramid, the council has less and less choice; the question is not about what the council would like. Instead, the council must judge what the current law allows given the facts placed before us.

A decision about what to put in the comp plan, or how to zone a property within the parameters permitted by the comp plan, is a legislative decision. According to another League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust document ("Zoning Decisions," p. 1),

When adopting or amending a zoning ordinance, a city council is exercising so-called “legislative” authority. The council is advancing health, safety, and welfare by making rules that apply throughout the entire community. When acting legislatively, the council has broad discretion and will be afforded considerable deference by any reviewing court. City councils are ultimately accountable to the voters for legislative decisions.

In contrast, when deciding how to apply the comprehensive plan and the zoning -- for example, by judging whether or not a specific conditional use permit should be issued -- the city council is making a quasi-judicial decision. The same LMCIT document goes on to say, with regard to quasi-judicial authority:

The task is to determine the facts associated with a particular request, and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in the zoning ordinance and relevant state law. A city council has less discretion when acting quasi-judicially, and a reviewing court will examine whether the city council applied rules already in place to the facts before it. In general, if the facts indicate the applicant meets the relevant legal standard, then they are likely entitled to the approval.

The LMCIT document provides more information specific to conditional use permits (p. 3):

City councils sometimes misunderstand the level and the nature of discretion they have when reviewing applications for conditional use permits. If a proposed conditional use satisfies the conditional use standards set forth in the zoning ordinance, then generally the landowner is entitled to the conditional use permit. The city made the legislative decision about the appropriateness of a kind of use in a zoning district when the council adopted the ordinance providing for the use as conditional. When considering a conditional use permit application, the city is tasked with the more limited quasi-judicial role of considering whether the facts of a particular application satisfy the standards set forth in the ordinance.

Boiling things down, CoPar's argument is that the city was arbitrary or unreasonable in denying their application, because their proposal (in their view) did comply with the city's standards. In order to appeal the city's decision, they filed suit. If we proceed to court, a judge will examine the record and determine whether the city applied the law correctly to this situation.

The LMCIT document also discusses how a judge would review a decision (p. 5).

If the city action is challenged, courts will review the decision on the public record. The record must demonstrate the city exercised the appropriate level of discretion and applied the relevant standards in a reasonable fashion. It may not matter that the city acted reasonably if the city is unable to prove its actions through the public record. (emphasis added)

It is very important to understand the role of the record. The judge can only determine whether or not the decision was appropriate, based on the reasons given by the council when they made the decision. Was the law applied correctly, given the facts set out by the public record when the council's decision was made? If someone, after the decision, came up with an added reason or better explanation for why it was reasonable to turn down the application, that will not help the city win the case.

It should be no surprise that the LMCIT strongly recommends that a city create a written list of findings for quasi-judicial decisions such as those about conditional use permits (p. 6).

The written statement explaining the reasons for the zoning decision is particularly important for quasi-judicial decisions such as variances and conditional use permits. The League recommends the city adopt written findings of fact and conclusions of law whenever a city makes such decisions. The document should identify the relevant legal criteria such as statutory standards or code provisions, explain the relevant facts relating to the particular application, and then apply those facts to the legal criteria. The document should provide a court with everything needed to uphold the zoning decision.

Unfortunately, in the decision that led to the current lawsuit, those written findings were never produced. This is just one of the complications that we face, but the unique problems of our specific situation are better saved for a separate article.

Labels: development, process

Posted by John Nephew at 5/04/2008 02:19:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

The past week has been very busy, so I'm late in writing this, but I wanted to say that I thought there was a lot to like about last Monday's council meeting (April 28). In particular the wetland ordinance discussion at the end seemed to me to be a good example of the way that, as a council and a community, we should operate.

At issue were changes to the wetland ordinance, which I have discussed previously. The agenda item was the second reading of the proposed changes; if we had approved it, they would have become law as soon as they were published in the official newspaper.

A number of residents came forward with concerns. On the whole, my sense was that the residents supported the intent and general thrust of the changes and placed a high value on water quality and wetland preservation, but they were calling the council's attention to specific issues that concerned them in terms of the impact and possible unintended consequences in their own neighborhoods. They brought the issues forward in a manner that was reasoned, respectful and constructive, and all of us -- the council, the city staff, the chair of the Environmental & Natural Resources Commission -- listened and discussed their points.

In the end, the council decided (with what looked to me like the agreement of city staff and the commission chair) to table the second reading, and refer the ordinance back to the Environmental Commission for another look in light of the concerns that had been raised (and, I hope, with the continued involvement of the residents who brought those concerns to us).

I am hopeful that this is a sign of things to come, in terms of how the council and the city can work together in a positive way.

Labels: environment, process

Posted by John Nephew at 5/03/2008 05:53:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The front page of the Maplewood website has an open letter to residents from Acting City Manager Chuck Ahl, addressing concerns about the city's finances. It will also be printed in the next city newsletter that is mailed to residents each month.

The key message in the letter is to reassure residents that no evidence of misappropriation or wrongdoing has been found. Rather, the underlying problem is that the city's accounting has not been kept up to date. This is understandable, given that the finance department was seriously short-staffed at various times last year. I believe we went from a full complement of eight employees in 2006 down to a low of just two people in the finance department for one portion of 2007. A lack of timely accounting has a ripple effect on planning and budgeting city-wide (remember the erroneous claims from certain elected officials and their supporters that the Community Center was "in the black" last year?), so this is not a situation we want to have going forward. Fortunately, our city staff has made fixing this problem a top priority.

What about an audit? The Pioneer Press called for the State Auditor to get involved with Maplewood's situation, and Councilmember Erik Hjelle has written that he "will be requesting a forensic audit of the city by an outside body."

After last fall's election, I paid a visit to the State Auditor's offices. I happened to stop by on an afternoon when Rebecca Otto had an opening in her schedule, and I was able to learn directly from her about her office's role in relation to local governments like Maplewood. The State Auditor is charged with directly auditing a number of government entities, such as the counties and the three first-class cities (Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth). Normally a city like Maplewood hires a private auditing firm to review its books. However, our city council could request that the State Auditor audit our books as well, and I wondered if this might be a good idea, given the concerns I had about Maplewood's financial management under last year's leadership.

There are a couple of things to keep in mind at this point. One is that our auditors review the books once each year, so they have not yet looked at the 2007 records that are of concern. The second is that requesting the State Auditor to perform our 2007 audit would probably cost us taxpayers more (the city would be paying for the audit either way), since those auditors don't have the familiarity with our books and past practices that our current auditors do.

The State Auditor also is charged with special investigations of local governments -- for example, if someone finds evidence of missing property or funds. As Mr. Ahl's letter indicates, we have found no indication of such misdeeds. If we did, we would be required by law to notify the State Auditor.

After the meeting, my conclusion was that the best course of action was to let the normal auditing process play out. If anything suspicious was uncovered, then we would turn to the State Auditor for investigation and forensic auditing as appropriate. In the meantime, at the January 14th city council meeting, I proposed that the council name a liaison to our auditors, and received that appointment.

Labels: finance, process

Posted by John Nephew at 4/07/2008 11:05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

This week's Maplewood Review includes an article by Alex Davy that is well worth reading. Entitled "Goal-setting session pushed back; Mayor cites concern about open meeting law," it should probably be nominated for some award for longest and most in-depth article about a meeting that did not actually occur. Davy uses last week's cancelled council retreat as a springboard for a discussion about the Open Meeting Law in its Maplewood historical context, and also in the context of a bill now working through the Minnesota Legislature.

That bill is SF 3120/HF 3367. The two key provisions of the bill are first to require the recording of meetings that are closed for reasons other than attorney-client privilege. (In Maplewood we already record all closed meetings.) The second is an addition to the law that allows for the award of reasonable attorneys fees in cases where a written opinion was issued by IPAD and "the court finds that the opinion is directly related to the cause of action being litigated and that the public body did not act in conformity with the opinion." This brings the Open Meeting Law in line with other aspects of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act with respect to IPAD's advisory opinions.

These are small steps, but I'm happy to see any movement forward in the law. Remember, the Open Meeting Law does not only apply to the city council -- it also applies to the volunteers who serve on our city's citizen boards and commissions. As I am correctly quoted in Mr. Davy's article, I believe we need to bring more changes to the Open Meeting Law, to better encompass modern communications technology. This could improve communications within elected and appointed bodies, and increase transparency for citizens.

Labels: process

Posted by John Nephew at 4/03/2008 09:18:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

[This is an e-mail I sent yesterday to a mailing list of commissioners, activists, and other interested citizens. Councilmember Hjelle had previously sent a message laden with inaccuracies to this list, and several of the recipients had forwarded it to me. I thought it would be good to post my message here as well, for anyone interested to see.]

Folks,

Apparently some false information is being spread around by Councilmember Hjelle.

Among other tall tales, Mr. Hjelle wrote, “The sad reality is that our new council majority has no interest in addressing the concerns of the Moratorium and the area impacted by the COPAR development. That is why the issue is efectively [sic] dead, and why the moratorium is being allowed to simply end.”

The moratorium is ending because the city council lacks legal authority to extend it further. I brought this up at the January 28th council meeting, specifically because I was concerned about development occurring between the expiration of the moratorium and the adoption of any action based on the study findings.

In case anyone needs proof, I went back to the DVD of this meeting, excerpted the relevant portion of the discussion, and put it on YouTube:


You can see me ask, and Mr. Ahl and Mr. Kantrud answer quite clearly that we have extended the moratorium as far as the law allows. You can also see on the video that Mr. Hjelle was present to receive the same information. You'd have to ask him why he would lie to you all about this.

In terms of my interest in addressing the concerns of the moratorium area, I hope it's obvious that Mr. Hjelle does not speak for me and fails to accurately depict my views.

As I learned about the issues in the moratorium study area, I became interested in ways to preserve ecologically sensitive land there, and I came to appreciate how highly valued the land is in the eyes of the members of the original open space task force as well as south leg neighbors. I also am aware of the issues of property rights, ongoing litigation, and the complexities of land use planning. Finally, I worry that the solution some favor – of keeping 2-acre minimum lots – is no solution at all for the long term, even if it is something the city could maintain. Do we really want all those septic systems uphill from Fish Creek?

The only way to really preserve the ecological value of the land around Fish Creek is public ownership. This is not something the city could pay for out of petty cash, especially with the financial situation we've inherited. The original open space referendum money, of course, was long ago spent on other land. This means that the city would have to issue bonds. A referendum would be required and a majority of voters would have to support the borrowing.

I am asking city staff for information on the process by which such a referendum could be accomplished. In the meantime, interested folks can get a start by reading a section of the Handbook for Minnesota Cities, Chapter 24: Debt and Borrowing (look at “Voter Approval” on pages 7-8 of this document).

If certain members of the council are interested in actually doing something for Fish Creek, rather than just trying to exploit it as a political wedge as they did last year, then we might get the votes in the council necessary to authorize a bond question on the ballot.

Then it's up to the citizens. The League of Minnesota Cities warns, “City officials should be careful not to endorse or campaign in favor of the bond election. Any published materials should be confined to factual statements about the project to be financed. Campaigning should be left to citizen’s groups.” (This comes from an Attorney General's opinion.) Fortunately, we may already have such a citizen's group in the form of the Fish Creek Initiative.

While bonding to buy more open space may be a tough sell with the electorate, especially in this economic downturn, we do live in a community that puts a very high value on our environment, our parks, and our neighborhood preserves. A ballot question would give citizens and activists who want to protect Fish Creek and its environs the chance to take their case directly to the voters, to persuade them that this is an investment that is worth making for Maplewood's future.

Sincerely,

John Nephew, Councilmember

Labels: environment, finance, process, video

Posted by John Nephew at 3/02/2008 11:00:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

I wanted to take a moment to talk about the council's dismissal of the city manager and our recent settlement. I voted to dismiss Mr. Copeland because I believe he isn't suited to work with Maplewood's new city council. I disagreed with his philosophy on management and labor, as I heard him express it and witnessed its practical effects on the city's budget, reorganization, and related lawsuits. I believe he politicized his role by implementing the agendas of particular members of the council instead of serving the council as a whole, and because of this I don't trust him. A city council, in my view, has a duty to employ a city manager who has their trust and confidence and to replace one who does not.

In asking outside counsel to help with Mr. Copeland's dismissal, I had three goals:

1. Remove Mr. Copeland from office
2. Reduce the cost of Mr. Copeland's severance package
3. Reduce or eliminate the risk of litigation from Mr. Copeland's removal

The main points of the final settlement are:

• Mr. Copeland is removed without cause.
• Mr. Copeland withdrew his request for written charges and a public hearing.
• Mr. Copeland agreed to a very broad release and discharge of any possible litigation he might have brought against the city.
• The city agreed to pay Mr. Copeland's salary and benefits through June 14th. This amounts to five months of severance, if you include the time he's been on paid leave. The city also agreed to reimburse a number of work-related expenses from late last year, provided the appropriate receipts are submitted. The parties agreed to what exactly “benefits” includes (namely, the city's contribution to health, dental, disability, and life insurance).
• The city agreed not to bring suit against Copeland for known claims, with two items specifically mentioned.
• The city's release does not include any presently unknown claims, nor any criminal charges that might be prosecuted. The city also reserves the right to bring him in to any lawsuit that results from actions he took as city manager, if he is not indemnified by Minnesota Statute 466.07. (This statute requires cities to indemnify officers and employees who are sued for actions taken in the performance of their duties, with exceptions for malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith.)
• The settlement agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Copeland and the city, superceding any other agreements or understandings.

By taking our time, consulting with our attorneys, and negotiating these terms for Mr. Copeland's departure, I think we took the right path in serving the interests of the city, and we achieved my three goals.

In terms of monetary savings, we clearly saved at least one month of severance expenses. This alone covers the fees of outside counsel, and saves a little more for the taxpayers besides.

More importantly, Mr. Copeland's release and discharge lays to rest all the legal questions that were swirling in the air, at least on the civil front. Whatever you may think of the validity of the agreement signed by Mayor Longrie and Mr. Copeland, we won't have to spend any money debating it in court. That document is now moot as far as Mr. Copeland's employment with the city is concerned.

As I said before voting to approve the settlement, I do believe there was just cause to dismiss Mr. Copeland. But the financial benefit from doing that was limited. At best, we could have avoided paying six months of severance. Mr. Copeland's lawyer had indicated his willingness to sue to obtain that severance, so those savings had to be weighed against the legal expenses of taking a stand. While I think we would have won in the end, I also think we probably would have spent more than the value of Mr. Copeland's severance in making our case.

I realize that some residents will feel let down by the settlement, and will wish that we had opted for a public confrontation. Besides the lack of a financial upside for doing that, we also have to consider the impact it would have had on the community. A drawn-out battle would reopen wounds, further polarize the community, and distract us from important business that needs our attention. In short, rather than helping repair the dysfunction of the past two years, my worry is that an extended struggle over Copeland's dismissal would prolong it.

Finally, I'd like to suggest that the problem with Mr. Copeland was ultimately not about him as an individual, but the role he played as a faithful tool in the hands of last year's council majority. Personal hostility towards him is misplaced. The previous majority appointed him and expressed satisfaction with his performance time and again, because he was in fact doing what they wanted to see done. The responsibility should rest on their shoulders when the true costs of the past two years of mismanagement are tallied.

Labels: council politics, manager search, process

Posted by John Nephew at 2/22/2008 06:56:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

The last of our campaign literature has begun arriving in mailboxes. We received our copy in Saturday's mail, and as I was out talking to voters this weekend I heard from folks from north to south who had also received it.


Throughout this campaign, I've used this guiding principle for my campaign's literature: Don't try to convince voters of something new; remind them of what they already know to be true. The purpose of the literature is not to change anyone's view of the world, but to inspire them to take action, to give them confidence that their vote can fix the problems that are plain for all of us to see.

In my first piece, the door-knocking palm card, I laid out my three campaign themes: fiscal responsibility (anyone who got a property tax bill for 2007, while seeing the elimination of the parks department, can understand this one); good government (anyone who had doubts about this can see Erik Hjelle spending our tax dollars to promote reeelection of his ally, Rebecca Cave, in the latest city newsletter that was rushed out just in time for the election); and pride in Maplewood, which is really the call to action -- persuading voters that we can restore our pride in Maplewood by using the ballot box to choose a better future for our city.

Before the primary, we created "Puzzled" as a metaphor for the divided and fractured city that we all have come to see, and to suggest me as a candidate who can solve it.

In "Shortchanged," we reprinted a number of headlines and quotes about the 2007 budget and reorganization and its fallout, reminding voters of the mess we've all watched unfold over the past two years. "Bad Apple" was a humorous spin on the feelings expressed to me by many voters all over the city, who felt angry and frustrated, even if they had voted for some or all in the council's current majority. We wanted to acknowledge those feelings, but turn them to a positive end of bringing needed change.

Coming into the home stretch, Will and I were again producing joint pieces. "Lightbulbs" further developed the motif of light and darkness from Will's mailer "Dutch Boy" (which compared him to Hans Brinker holding his finger in the dike through a long, cold night to hold back the flood while waiting for help to arrive). This council majority talks a good line about openness, but they have been surrounded by controversy over alleged violations of the open meeting law, and actions such as the 2 AM permanent appointment of Mr. Copeland as city manager "in the dark of night."

And this of course brings us to this last mailer, "New Day." It took a lot of crisp autumn mornings for me to get the right photograph of a beautiful Maplewood sunrise (that long rainy stretch in October wasn't helping!). We wanted something simple, positive, and inspirational -- as we've found throughout this campaign, the voters know what needs to be done. We just want to nudge more of them into the voting booth. (And to bring their neighbors!)

We've worked hard to keep our literature positive. While we have legitimately criticized the official actions and methods of this council majority (which includes one of my opponents), to remind voters why change is needed, we have avoided personal attacks on our opponents, and taken great care to comply with campaign laws. I believe that a victory built upon personal attacks, smears, threats, and lies is no victory for Maplewood; it deepens the divisions in the community, provokes resentment, and makes it hard to govern effectively (as the last two years demonstrate). If winning this race requires the use of such methods, I would rather not win.

I believe voters appreciate the difference. Take a look at the literature of my campaign and Will's, put it next to the literature that has come from the other candidates and their supporters (including those anonymous attacks and the use of our taxpayer-funded city newsletter for campaigning). Which campaigns have displayed the methods, attitude, and regard for the law that you would like to see speaking for you and your community in City Hall?

The answer should be as clear as day.

Labels: campaign 2007, process

Posted by John Nephew at 11/05/2007 09:12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

While the present council majority and their city manager have devoted so much time to their political-strategy-related policy initiatives, such as conservation easements, we see them neglect the day-to-day basics of the city.

For example, it appears that Maplewood still has not filed its 2006 financial reports, which were due to the State Auditor on June 30th. The Auditor's office has written to Mayor Longrie asking for the long overdue reports, and stated that there will be a penalty if we do not file the overdue documents by October 31st.

Labels: process

Posted by John Nephew at 10/18/2007 10:59:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

It's about time.

Monday night, at a council/manager workshop, the city council majority finally allowed a discussion of a wider range of options for the protection of Maplewood parks and open space -- a discussion that Will Rossbach has been requesting for months. The packet prepared for the meeting by city staff includes various alternatives, their pros and cons, and their costs.

This is a meeting that should have happened months ago. The city manager and council majority invested a lot of time and thousands of taxpayer dollars in one option (the most expensive one), and advocated its use across the board, before even looking at what other options might be out there. The entire saga of conservation easements has demonstrated the flawed approach to decision-making that is typical of this council majority, putting their personal and political agendas ahead of the public good.

Let's take a trip down memory lane.

The first mention I can find of conservation easements was a column attributed to Erik Hjelle in the September 2006 city newsletter: "The council is also researching the steps necessary for conservation easements on open space." (Can anyone point me to an agenda item or meeting minutes where the council discussed easements in an open meeting before this date or directed staff to research them?)

In the February issue Mayor Diana Longrie then wrote, "The council's Conservation Easement initiative is moving forward." Rebecca Cave had a column in the same issue, and promoted the upcoming conservation easements workshop, writing, "Anyone interested in learning more about how the City Council plans to protect our City Open Spaces permanently should come to this meeting." Again, before the council had actually looked at this issue in the workshop or taken any votes, as far as I can tell, Cave describes it as the "plan" that the Council will enact.

Cave and Longrie also mailed invitations, apparently with their own funds, to residents living near parks and neighborhood preserves.

At last, on April 9th, the council held a workshop on the topic. (You can read my detailed notes from the meeting.) At that time the direction Copeland seemed to be taking, without any formal vote or directive from the council, was to place easements on all of the city's parks and open space. When the representative of the Minnesota Land Trust suggested that doing that would take at least a year, Copeland narrowed the focus to just the neighborhood preserves, to have something that could be enacted on a shorter timetable (coincidentally, a timetable prior to the elections).

After laying all this groundwork, it came as no surprise when Rebecca Cave made conservation easements a centerpiece of her campaign ("THEY ARE NOT FOR SALE!"), along with spurious claims that her opponents want to sell the city's parks and neighborhood preserves.

Since the April workshop, the mayor has continued to promote conservation easements -- effectively campaigning for Cave -- in the taxpayer-funded city newsletter, in August and October. Ms. Cave did as well (in June). I don't know if they actually did it, but they at least planned for the city to produce a cable TV program promoting the idea as well.

(Let's keep in mind that, while keeping the drumbeat for conservation easements going, they also eliminated our Parks & Recreation Department and their city manager proposed a 72.8% cut in capital funding to parks.)

After more than a year of building up this campaign for conservation easements, linking it to Rebecca Cave, and stonewalling Will Rossbach, the council majority finally gave in to Rossbach's request for a public discussion of alternatives.

What do we find at the end of the discussion? Well, apparently conservation easements are not suitable for all of the Neighborhood Preserves; many of these alternatives cost little or nothing to put in place; and the protection provided by the other alternatives is actually more appropriate to many of the pieces of land at issue.

It sure seemed to me like at the end of the meeting both Mayor Longrie and Councilmember Cave were more or less agreeing with the position Councilmember Rossbach took all along -- that conservation easements might be appropriate for some neighborhood preserves, but probably not for all, and it was important to apply the right tools for each situation -- and they were claiming that this is what they really intended all along.

What to make of this? Like I said, it strikes me as another example of this council's bad policy process.

I suspect this all began with a political goal, to create a campaign issue for Rebecca Cave and manufacture a controversy. In order to put Rossbach on the record in opposition, it appears they needed to promote as extreme a version as possible at the beginning. Then, when Rossbach predictably stood up for common sense and reason and the not-so-crazy idea of looking at the alternatives before committing a lot of money to a specific course of action, they misrepresented his concerns to portray him as wanting to sell the city's open space. The campaign for easements had two key aspects: one was riling up fear and anger in neighborhoods (making people believe their neighborhood preserves and parks are threatened); the other was presenting Cave as essential to the only possible solution, with her commitment to conservation easements. In this way, the entire conservation easements "issue" has put the interests of the city behind the self-interested political agenda of the council majority.

As the high cost of actually enacting easements has become more apparent, as have the city's budgetary woes, the importance of actually putting the easements in place has waned for the council majority. But to my mind, the whole exercise (including the use of a lot of taxpayer dollars along the way) was a political gambit from the outset. I'm not even sure how much attention the council majority will have for the issue, once the election is past.

A better way, I believe, would have been to have an explanation of the problem that needs fixing, and a survey of the alternatives that might solve it, at the beginning. Explore the options, build consensus as you move forward, and settle on a course of action that has broad support and political investment, and public confidence that the best available option was chosen out in the open and the light of day. Building this kind of cooperative political will is not only a less-divisive way to govern, but it also makes for stronger and more-enduring policies. That's what Maplewood needs for a better future.

Labels: parks, process

Posted by John Nephew at 10/17/2007 11:05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

One of the most intimidating things I faced when working on a plan to run for Maplewood City Council was the idea of fundraising. Whether we like it or not, money is part of politics, and it's a major challenge for every candidate.

A candidate's fundraising may give us a hint about how they will manage the public purse once in office. For example, do they spend their money effectively? Do they follow the rules, by turning in the required reports, complete and on time? Only three candidates and one organization involved in this race turned in their pre-primary campaign finance reports on time. I think the last couple of years of Maplewood governance have shown us some unfortunate examples of what can happen when people ignore the rules or skip reading the fine print.

Some may say that it's suspicious for a candidate to raise money from out of town. It's really not, if you think about it.

When you need to raise money for a campaign, you first go to the people you know. I do not have family in Maplewood (besides my wife, Michelle, of course), so all my contributions from family come from out of town, often out of state. Many of my friends also are not local; our business associates and customers are located all over the country.

These people gave me money not because they care about Maplewood, but because they trust and believe in me -- they believe I have the passion, the integrity, the honesty, and the competence to accomplish something good. They have known me for years, know how I treat people, know the ethical standards by which I have conducted my business with them and their peers. (You can read an earlier entry I wrote about some of these supporters.) There is nothing I can do in Maplewood city council that will benefit a game publisher in Seattle or a New York Times bestselling science fiction novelist in Arizona. Is it better for a candidate to have all their money come from local people who may have a personal or financial stake in the city council's decisions?

My fundraising demonstrates that I have an ability to lead, to bring people together for a higher purpose than their personal, selfish interests. Some people may try and convince you this is a bad thing. Perhaps they want candidates in office who owe them something.

I would suggest that my fundraising demonstrates exactly what you should want in a councilperson. Rather than making enemies of my business competitors, I made them into friends who respect me enough to give me money just for asking, for a city council race a thousand miles away. Heck, I even got a contribution from a former high school girlfriend. And as of that finance report turned in last week, I had received cash donations from 92 individuals -- not just maximum contributions from a handful of big donors.

Ask yourself, why do some other candidates not have a huge list of supporters who willingly gave them money just because they asked? Were they unpersuasive? Do the people who know them best not find them trustworthy? Were they just afraid to ask? And -- here's the big question -- are those the people you want representing Maplewood when it comes time to go to the county, state, or federal government, or anywhere else, and ask for money?

So if someone tries to frighten you by saying that I raised more money from out-of-state donors than most candidates in this race have raised in total, ask yourself -- is that really a bad thing?

Labels: campaign 2007, process

Posted by John Nephew at 9/07/2007 09:46:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

This past Monday, the theater in the Maplewood Community Center was overflowing with citizens who turned out for this special meeting of the city council, to express both support and concerns about the proposed Planned Unit Development on the site of St. Paul's Monastery.

I offered a couple of lines of thought, both rooted in my perspective as a businessman. First, I wanted to focus attention on the fact that we were talking about the Benedictine sisters' private land. The proposed development is in harmony both with existing zoning and with the city's comprehensive land use plan. Thus, it seems to me that the hurdle is set very high, in terms of the public interest that must be served in order to outweigh the private landowners' property rights. Second, I wanted to speak to the importance of affordable housing as a public good, in helping working families better their own situation and become more secure and self-sufficient, which benefits all of us as taxpayers and fellow citizens. When non-profit organizations are stepping forward to provide this affordable housing in our community, it's an opportunity we should not miss.



Because one of the five members of the city council was absent from the meeting on account of illness, the vote was tabled until tomorrow night's regular council meeting.

Labels: development, process, video

Posted by John Nephew at 5/13/2007 11:44:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Tonight I attended the meeting of Maplewood's Community Design Review Board. There were detailed discussions about plans to build a Costco, and to expand the Corner Kick Soccer Center. What stood out to me most, however, was a question raised by vice chair Matt Ledvina late in the meeting: What's up with the big LED billboard along I-494 in south Maplewood?

The story goes something like this: Clear Channel Communications applied for a permit to repair an old billboard along the freeway, and were granted it. However, instead of the simple repairs expected, the old billboard was replaced with a huge light-emitting diode (LED) screen, essentially a gigantic (175 square feet) flat screen television, which can have changing advertisements, animation, flashing images, etc.

They did the same thing in numerous metro suburbs, resulting in quite an outcry, legal actions, and moratoria. Neighbors in many communities object to the bright, shifting displays, and some in law enforcement are concerned about safety and driver distraction on our high-speed roads. Minnetonka disconnected the power to the two LED billboards in their city, and a court upheld their right to do so.

In the case of Maplewood, it seems to be a blatant violation of our existing billboard ordinance, which like Minnetonka's prohibits flashing signs. The city asked Clear Channel to apply for a variance. Clear Channel did not wish to do so, explaining that a variance would require a demonstration of unique hardship, which they did not believe they could provide. So the city gave them an alternative: this particular billboard already had some kind of special treatment in terms of setback or something, so Clear Channel could apply for a conditional use permit, and treat this as a modification of an existing special arrangement rather than a brand new variance.

According to a Lillie Papers article, Clear Channel was given February 27th as a deadline to apply for a variance in Maplewood. Perhaps they were given another deadline for a CUP application. In any case, the deadlines have come and gone, and no application has been submitted.

CDRB Chair Linda Olsen was enraged as she heard about how Clear Channel not only ignored city ordinance in the first place, but has disregarded the city's request for a CUP application, even as the city has bent over backwards to give them a chance to explain themselves and make their case for why they should be given an exception from city codes. The board discussed whether the city should even cut the sign's power, as Minnetonka has done.

Ledvina offered a motion requesting that the city council direct staff to resolve this matter quickly, which the board unanimously approved.

Our city manager, Mr. Copeland, is on the record saying "the benefits of the technology outweighed the initial lack of information." I hope he doesn't feel the benefits of the technology mean that Maplewood should just let it go when a big corporation not only flouts our ordinances, but turns up its nose when we go the extra mile to try and work with them and still maintain the integrity of the law. If Mr. Copeland thinks our billboard ordinance is outdated, he should argue his case to the city council to change it.

In the meantime, I think we may have an assignment for our new code enforcement officer.

Edit, 5/9 12:31 PM: Maplewood Voices found another good link to a Maplewood Review article about the billboard.

Labels: process

Posted by John Nephew at 5/08/2007 11:46:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Every student of American history knows about the sign on President Truman's desk, which read, "The Buck Stops Here!" This slogan resonates with us in America. We like decisive leaders, and leaders who own their decisions. We don't care for leaders who dither, procrastinate, and prevaricate; nor do we like leaders who point the finger when their own decisions (or indecision) don't bring the good results hoped for. No one is perfect, but we all learn from our mistakes — and we wonder if someone who disowns his own errors, oversights and misjudgements can learn anything from them.

A recent entry in the blog of City Councilmember Will Rossbach calls our attention to the latest example of finger-pointing in our city government. A lower-level city employee has been formally reprimanded by the city manager for not knowing the legal requirements of the "60-day rule" for notifying a developer that an application was denied by the city council majority. The lack of this formal notice is a key issue in CoPar's lawsuit against Maplewood; it might be the issue on which the whole decision turns. Rather than accepting responsibility for the city's error, city manager Copeland passed the buck, placing the blame on an underling.

After mulling over the situation, Rossbach suggests that perhaps letters of reprimand should be added to the files of all the managers above this individual, including the city manager. I think Will stops one step short. The city council majority is due a harsh reprimand as well.

Even if you excuse Cave, Hjelle and Longrie their personal ignorance of the statute's requirements in this situation (which is perfectly understandable), this council majority can't duck responsibility for selecting Copeland as city manager and Kantrud as city attorney. Those two direct council appointees are responsible for supervising the lower-level staff and advising the city on its legal obligations. Competence in those offices would make any alleged neglect by lower-level city officials in this case irrelevant. The city manager should have put a written statement on the agenda for the following meeting for the council to formally approve. When he failed to do so, the city attorney should have brought the omission to the council's attention, since it's his job to know the law and provide such legal guidance to the council.

Perhaps some people on staff knew what needed to be done, but were afraid to stick their necks out by, in effect, telling the city manager how to do his job. (Remember how the human resources director was fired last year after insisting that the city obey its own ordinances with regard to a mandatory background check.) If this were the case, I still think the ultimate responsibility falls upon the city council majority and their appointed manager, whose approach to governance has made the atmosphere in city hall so poisonous over the past year.

The importance of a professional city manager is most clear not in the day-to-day matters, where any old person might do, but in the marginal cases where a reservoir of experience and knowledge keeps the city from even getting into problems like this in the first place.

I've already suggested that Maplewood needs to replace the current city manager with a qualified, competent professional. This is yet another example where Copeland's inexperience and lack of qualifications in running a city is failing both Maplewood and even the council majority that appointed him.

The city council has the power to remove the city manager, as they did his predecessor. However, at every step so far, Cave, Longrie and Hjelle have reaffirmed their support of Mr. Copeland. They did so with a vote of confidence after reviewing his background check (which clearly showed his lack of qualifications); they did it again with the 2 AM vote to cancel the search for a professional manager and install Copeland permanently (a vote which took place after this CoPar notification was botched, and at a point when it was becoming clear even to outside observers that Copeland's budgetary process was a mess).

In May the council will be reviewing Mr. Copeland's performance. Will he be held accountable for his failures? Or will it be up to the voters in November to bring accountability to City Hall?

Labels: process

Posted by John Nephew at 4/30/2007 11:26:00 PM | Permalink | Comments