Bloomington City Manager Jamie Verbrugge and Port Authority Administrator Schane Rudlang hosted a FACEBOOK LIVE Q&A session on Wednesday, June 12, to answer questions about the city’s role in developing the proposed Waterpark at the Mall of America (MOA).
The water park is proposed to be one of the largest indoor water parks in North America. It is projected to cost about $250 million. Its advocates say that it would add to the vibrancy and resiliency of the mall. While open to the public and not contractually connected to any hotel, it would create new demand for hotel rooms in Bloomington’s South Loop and draw greater interest in the amenities offered at MOA.
MOA currently surrounds and encloses one of the largest indoor amusement parks in North America. Why does it need an equally large water park? Triple 5, the commercial real estate management firm that owns MOA, is dealing with the changing reality of large retail malls. New projects that it is developing have about a 50% non-retail component. MOA is about 70% retail today. T5 has added hotels and office space, but believes that MOA needs to further diversify its entertainment and restaurant features.
If the water park is critical to the future viability of the mall, why doesn’t T5 finance the project itself? It owns the land, which is currently serving as an open parking lot. However, it argues that even with the increased customer traffic, it will not generate enough cashflow to cover commercial interest payments of 7-10% and achieve an attractive return on investment.
Enter the City of Bloomington, its Port Authority development arm, and the concept of a nonprofit specifically set up to borrow the funding needed to construct the water park.Read more
The Edina Sun Current reported last week on a presentation from the National Research Center to the Edina City on the 2019 Quality of Life Survey taken by city residents. The results indicate that Edina is continues to be a highly desirable place to live. However, the pace and management of development in the city may be reaching a tipping point.
Only 51% of the respondents felt that the City was doing well in “managing tensions of the community related to residential redevelopment”. This is down from 68% of respondents as recently as 2017.
City Councilmember Mike Fischer was quoted as saying, “You can see a downward trend in how people are feeling about redevelopment-related issues, which is understandable. It’s a lot of change. It’s the dynamic we deal with a lot in this room. We still haven’t quite figured out the silver bullet on residential redevelopment.”
The sharp drop in positive responses points to a growing concern among Edina’s residents. Do these results simply quantify the unease of long-time residents with the number of older houses being replaced with larger, more expensive homes? Or are they a reflection of the feeling that the uniqueness of the Edina community is being lost with the accelerating pace of higher density development, increased traffic, and the dismissal of comprehensive plans that are too quickly ruled obsolete?
Are half the residents really saying that the Edina mayor and city council need to stop their efforts at managing “tensions” and look again at what makes Edina the special place it is? To protect and sustain it before it is lost forever?Read more
During the 2017 School Board Election, the teacher’s union endorsed 5 candidates. They spent thousands of dollars mailing postcards to households in Edina in their support. The reason the teacher’s union does that is to elect school board members that are sensitive to teacher’s interests, including higher salaries.
However, the fiscal responsibilities of the school board often conflict with the desires of the teacher’s union. Every year, we have a fiscal cost crunch. Revenues increase 2% and expenses increase 3%. Then the school board has to meet budget by reducing programs, delaying maintenance investments or not investing more in programs for our kids. Teacher’s payroll is a large expense. If the school board votes for teacher salary increases greater than expected revenue increases, they are being fiscally irresponsible.
A conflict of interest arises when school board members, who the teacher’s union helped elect, vote for salary increases greater than revenue increases.
To avoid these conflicts of interest, I recommend the school board create a policy, beginning with the 2019 election, that school board candidates do not seek endorsement by the teacher’s union. Further, if the teacher’s union does endorse a successful school board candidate, that individual must recuse themselves from voting on all salary contracts with the teacher’s union.
With Minnesota moving to a presidential primary in 2020, voters in that primary will likely have to identify their party affiliation to vote for their party’s candidates. How do other states with a presidential primary work it? We asked Max Robinson, a former resident of Senate District 49, how it works in his new state. And along the way learned that MN is one of only 3 states which does not have provisional ballots.
In Florida, you must be registered under your party to vote in that party's primary and the party affiliations of voters is public. You don't have to register under a party but then you can't vote in the primaries. I think that's a good way to do it and it stops some primary skullduggery.
We have "Ballot on Demand" here where they print a ballot showing only the offices you are eligible to vote for. They print your ballot on the spot when you enter the polling place or you can order an absentee ballot. Only Republicans are listed on my ballot in primary elections. Then, in the general election, candidates from all the parties are shown. You cannot vote across party lines in primaries but you can in general elections.Read more
The Ominbus Education Bill (House bill HF2400) passed on to the MN Senate mandates a model of sexual education for use in Minnesota schools. Opportunities for parental advice and consent is minimized short of removing a child from the class. The Senate’s companion bill (SF0007) does not contain the language for Comprehensive Sex Education, and the differences will be resolved in a Conference Committee.
In the House bill:
• The MN Commissioner of Education must identify a model comprehensive sexual health education program for K through 12 and provide it to all schools, including written materials, curriculum resources, and training for instructors.
• It must teach "consent," which the legislation describes as "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in interpersonal, physical, or sexual activity." This assumes and normalizes value-free sexual activity among children.
• It must teach "bodily autonomy." Bodily autonomy teaches that one has the right to kill a preborn child in one's body, and therefore abortion is moral.
• It must teach "diverse sexual orientations and gender identities." The legislation allows instruction by "community organizations." Schools could select Planned Parenthood and/or gender activist groups to teach, regardless of their qualifications or real agenda.
• A school district that does not adopt the state model program must include all of the items listed and then submit its sexual health education program to the MN Department of Education for approval. This kills any semblance of local control. Parents cannot appeal to their local school board to challenge what is deeply offensive to them.
• It must teach "abstinence and other methods for preventing unintended pregnancy." What is uncertain is how much emphasis abstinence will get, given the other mandated subjects.
• It must refer students to "local resources for services related to sexual and reproductive health." That could open the door to the referral of children to Planned Parenthood for abortion and birth control without parental knowledge or consent.
The Senate’s companion bill (SF0007) does not contain the language for Comprehensive Sex Education.
The Conference Committee members from the House are James T. Davnie (DFL, SE Minneapolis), Cheryl Youakim (DFL, Hopkins & St. Louis Park), Dave Pinto (DFL, Highland Park), Julie Sandstede,(DFL, Hibbing) and Dean Urdahl (R, Grove City). The Senate members are Carla Nelson (R, Rochester/SD26) John Jasinski (R,Faribault/SD24), Bill Weber (R, Luverne/SD22), Justin Eichorn (R, Grand Rapids/SD05), and Charles Wiger (DFL, Maplewood/SD43).
In expressing your opinion to these legislators, you don’t need to compose a different email for each one. Sending out an email to all of the members as a kind of email blitz works just as well. However, each member of the committee should receive a copy of the email; don’t just send an email to the Committee Chair or Republican Lead. We will update THIS LINK with the list of legislators to contact to urge the removal of this language from the final bill.
Jason Flohrs, State Director for the Minnesota Chapter of Americans for Prosperity, was the featured speaker at Senate District 49 Republicans’ April dinner program. He painted a sobering picture of the obstacles that Gov. Walz and the Minnesota legislature must overcome to reach a budget agreement before the start of the state’s next fiscal year in July. The differences between the DFL-controlled House and the Senate Republican majority will require significant compromises if a state government shutdown is to be avoided.
Flohrs stated that it is the role of the Minnesota legislature to prioritize the needs of Minnesotans within a reasonable budget. This task has been complicated by the view of the DFL governor and DFL House of what constitutes a reasonable budget.
In February, one month into the 2019 legislative session, the Minnesota Office of Management and Budget forecast a $1B surplus for FY 20-21. Gov. Walz’ proposed budget consumed that surplus and demanded more. At $49.5B, it represents a 10% increase over the FY 18-19 budget. The built-in growth in planned spending goes well beyond FY 20-21. Much of the increased spending is not mentioned because it will occur beyond the planning window.
When your appetite for spending exceeds the $1B surplus, what do you do? You simply push for tax increases, without regard to their impacts. A 70% increase in the gas tax, for example. Flohrs pointed out that Walz never campaigned full-out for a 20-cent-a-gallon gas tax increase. He mentioned it, backed off, argued that it should be looked at, but never made it a key point of his candidacy. Now, Walz claims he has a mandate to raise the gas tax, to the point that Minnesotans will be paying the fourth highest gas tax in the nation.Read more
Last Monday, while many of us technological Neanderthals who still can’t bring ourselves to E-File were standing in line at the Post Office, the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Saint Paul handed down the latest decision in the seemingly endless saga of Cilek v. Office of Minnesota Secretary of State. To the amazement of just about nobody, the three judge panel unanimously “Affirmed” the decision of the Ramsey County District Court in July 2018, ordering the Secretary of State to comply with the request from the Minnesota Voters Alliance, for the public records from the election of 2016.
In a sharp rebuke to the Secretary of State, the Court said that the law he was citing to refuse the request, didn’t classify the information as non-public and didn’t allow him the discretion to keep it from the public!
Immediately, the Secretary of State’s office blurted out a press release full of vacuous and sanctimonious rationalizations about “protecting the privacy rights of voters” and opposing those who “seek to suppress the votes of thousands of eligible voters”, although no one has ever bothered to explain just exactly how anyone might be “suppressed” by the Secretary of State’s office being compelled to obey the law.
Ok, so let’s get this straight. Secretary of State Steve Simon isn’t ignorant about the law, and he most certainly isn’t without competent legal advice. And yet he insists on pushing this totally groundless effort, to deny the MVA the data that everybody knows is public, all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court….Really????Read more
The Bloomington City Council has a number of significant decisions coming in the near future that will involve substantial cash expenditures. Last October, the city identified eleven properties that are in “unsatisfactory” condition. These include Creekside Community Center and five of Bloomington’s six fire stations.
While we are certainly dismayed that the city has let critical infrastructure like fire stations deteriorate to such an extent, we certainly support the repair or replacement of any fire station that is in unsatisfactory condition. The Creekside Community Center occupies a sixty-year-old elementary school building that appears to no longer be suitable as a recreational and social facility for seniors. The city claims that upgrades would cost far more than the building is worth. We are willing to concede this point as well.
We are skeptical, however, about the recent decisions that the Bloomington City Council has taken. Faced with eleven properties that are in need of repair or replacement, half of which are clearly high priority, the city leaders appear ready to embark on two major capital projects.
The first is the building of an expensive community center for people of all ages. Earlier this month the Council directed city staff to develop plans for a new community center at the Valley View complex on 90th Street between Nicollet and Portland Avenues, destroying the recently (2012) renovated and highly popular outdoor Family Aquatic Center at the Valley View complex.
Bloomington’s community center has been under study since 2015. It quickly became more than a replacement for the aging center for seniors. Bloomington needed its own community center to rival ones in Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. Existing recreational facilities and meeting rooms in Bloomington schools; the YMCA in Edina; and commercial exercise and training facilities in Bloomington were not fit for the vision.Read more
Minnesota House Rep. Heather Edelson (DFL, Edina) has had the chance to weigh in on critical issues facing our state in her first term in office. As a member of the Health and Human Services Policy committee, one would think that Edelson would be in the forefront of addressing child care fraud and the effort to grant more independence to the Inspector General from the House and Human Services Department. Sadly, this has not been true.
Instead, we are disappointed to learn that Edelson is co-sponsoring House File 2752, which would require U.S. Presidential Candidates to publicly release their federal tax returns for the last 5 years. Should any Presidential Candidate choose not to publicly release their federal tax returns, the proposed legislation would ban placing the name of that candidate on primary ballots and general election ballots.
So, rather than working hard to stop the illegal use of taxpayer dollars, Rep. Edelson appears focused on national politics. She wants to make public how Presidential candidates, who legally pay their taxes, earn and spend their dollars. And she would ban from the ballot anyone who considers this a blatant invasion of privacy. Guess who she is really targeting!
Yes, elections have consequences. Tell Rep. Heather Edelson where you stand on this issue.
As the Legislature took a break, one of our readers asked Rep. Steve Elkins (DFL, Bloomington) about the bill (HF1783) he co-sponsored enabling yet again another study of the Dan Patch freight rail line for mass transit.
As pointed out by Russ Burnison, co-chair of Senate District 49 Republicans, “We have had 2 studies already about putting commuter rail on the freight line from Savage [through Bloomington and Edina] to St Louis Park. Both times it did not go over, so why spend more tax dollars to do it again?”
Elkins’ response? “We are not talking about commuter rail, we are talking about something like this [picture at right], which is far less expensive and intrusive than commuter rail”.
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… It sure looks like commuter rail to us!
If it is far less expensive than commuter rail, then why didn’t Elkins, when he was on the Metropolitan Council, push for “something like this” instead of the Southwest Light Rail line?Read more