Minneapolis Park Board Dist. 5 candidate responses

Questionnaire responses from candidates for Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Ward Five

Jason Stone

Email: Jason@stoneforparkboard.com or call 612-270-4568

Website: www.stoneforparkboard.com

Endorsements: Sierra Club, AFL-CIO COPE

Dan W. Peterson

(Did not respond to questionnaire)

McClain Looney

(Did not respond to questionnaire)

Carol Kummer

Email: carolkummer@earthlink.net or call 612-722-0370 or 612-325-6149;

Website: None

Endorsements: AFSCME Council 5; Mpls. Police Federation, Stonewall DFL "A" rating

Steve Barland

Email: None.

Website: None

Endorsements: None

What's one burning issue that's prompted you to run for this position?

Stone: Our park system makes this city great, and I want to see them maintained and serving families better.

Kummer: I am extremely concerned about the independence of the MPRB and the city's attempted takeover of our park system.

Barland: The next four years will be among the most difficult the system has ever faced; our neighborhood recreation centers will need an unflagging advocate.

Should the contract of current park superintendent Jon Gurban be renewed or should the Park Board begin a search for a new superintendent? Explain your reasoning.

Stone: My support for a park superintendent hinges on their ability to develop trust with the public while planning park and recreation services, to institute effective management practices and to provide elected officials with the information needed to represent the people. It would not be appropriate to discuss specific personnel issues in the newspaper.

Kummer: Mr. Gurban's contract expires June 2010. I believe that either a contract renewal or a candidate search should wait for action by those elected on November 3rd. The new board may not appreciate having the outgoing board pre-empting their choice of superintendent. And we should be careful not to get into a similar contentious situation that surrounded Mr. Gurban's hiring. The superintendent should not be a campaign issue -- potential good candidates for the job may be reluctant to apply, no matter how highly regarded our park system is.

Barland: Everyone should be held accountable for his or her job performance, but the performance of the professional staff should never be an issue during an election. The public's job is to analyze the performance of the system and its elected governing board. Voters need to elect representatives that can set policy that contributes to professional service delivery consistent with the mission. Self-appointed interest groups with narrow objectives cannot be allowed to hold the system hostage every election cycle. Superintendents are accountable to the policy board and that Board is accountable to the public. The time for the board's accountability is now.

The Park Board has been attempting to work with City Hall for several years to legislate a park dedication fee, which many suburbs require. Do you favor or oppose such a fee that would require a developer to provide money or land for park purposes when a development happens? Why?

Stone: It is unwise policy to be obligated to develop new park amenities where they are not needed, as might be implied by a park dedication fee. This would consume needed maintenance dollars from other areas of the park system. For this reason I am skeptical of this particular fee structure. I remain open to the possibility of generating park revenue through new developments, in some form or other.

Kummer: Yes, I wholeheartedly support a park dedication fee. As chair of the MPRB's legislative committee, I worked for its passage in 2006. I favor the fee because development puts a strain on existing parks and open space, which then is borne by the entire system. Nearby and adjacent parks actually add value to property and definitely improve the quality of life for those residents -- a win-win deal. With shrinking revenues, the MPRB must find new sources just to keep up with, not ahead of, the demands on our park system. The City Council has not yet approved an acceptable ordinance.

Barland: The dedication fee may be a good idea whose time has come and, at least for now, gone. Minneapolis is going to suffer from diminished property tax revenue for many years to come. Even as the economy recovers, tax collections will lag behind. New development is the ONLY way to bring the property tax base and, therefore, collections back to recent levels. Minneapolis needs to stay competitive with surrounding communities to attract new development. In boom times the concept makes sense but certainly not now.

Do you support or oppose the proposed city charter amendment that would grant greater independence to the Park Board? Why?

Stone: I support continuing the system in existence for 130 years, creating one of the finest park systems in the nation. I disagree with the council members' attempt to merge the Park Board into public works, and I also disagree with the Park Board's retaliatory and unconstitutional attempt to separate from the city entirely.

Kummer: I support greater independence -- without fiscal responsibility, there's no true accountability. There is general agreement that our nationally renowned park system evolved over its 120-plus-year history because of its independence. Think St. Paul, where park centers have been closed, and St. Frances considering selling parkland.

Barland: (no answer given)

Do you support or oppose the proposed charter amendment that would remove the Park Board representative from the city's Board of Estimate and Taxation, and have the board's powers assumed by the City Council? Why?

Stone: I oppose the charter amendment that would move the functions of the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) into the City Council. The BET is an effective body to control the negotiations over tax and bond levels between the City and Park Board.

Kummer: The charter amendment to remove not only the park board representative but the two citywide elected members of the Board of Estimate & Taxation is further proof that some in city government are determined to degrade the MPRB's voice in its financial future. Hasn't anyone thought it disingenuous that the city didn't challenge that amendment in court -- suppose they wouldn't since that's where it came from. I sincerely hope the 17,000-plus citizens who signed the petition will recognize the BET amendment for what it is -- a backdoor attempt to undermine the MPRB's independence.

Barland: I was a strong supporter of the initiative to make the Park and Recreation Board a completely independent entity. I believe that the rancor that some direct toward those who sought to fold the Park Board into the city is misplaced and typical of the sour politics that turns voters off. In fact, they did Minneapolis a favor; this move for promised but unproven efficiency literally untied voters in favor of the independence which has served our city in extraordinary fashion since MPRB was established. The courts have ruled but I also think the citizens' wishes are clear; they want to protect the assets and programs they cherish.

How would you work with the city and other parties to move forward the parks component of the 10-year-old Above The Falls plan for development of the city's upper riverfront, and what park improvements there would be your priorities?

Stone: Looking back over 100 years, the best choice made by the visionary founders of our park system was to make strategic investments in public space for future use. I advocate a moderate increase in bonding to accelerate the pace of mixed use development North of St. Anthony Falls -- the "Above the Falls" plan. This plan will enhance economic development to stabilize north Minneapolis and enhance the tax base of the city of Minneapolis, distributing taxes amongst more businesses and higher population. Once host to about 500,000 residents and now at about 380,000 residents, the city must attract more residents that will share the tax burden required to pay for things like cops, parks and schools.

Kummer: The MPRB supported the legislation creating the Riverfront Corporation, which the city felt was necessary to acquire land as it became available. The board has also added two parks and developed trails on both sides of the river. Improvements have been made to the riverfront across from our headquarters. My priority is the acquisition of land; without it, further advancement of the Above the Falls plan cannot proceed.

Barland: CPED, the city's planning and development functions, should lead and the park board should play a role of advise and consent and collaborate where there are opportunities to pursue funding. I do not believe, given the emerging budget crisis that one dime from the current operating budget should be diverted to any new endeavors no matter how worthy or how long they have been planned. Completing the vision for the grand rounds has been a project since the earliest days of the MPRB and has been slowly moved along, even set aside for periods of time, in favor of more urgent priorities. Maintaining existing physical plant will be first priority in these difficult times.

What's one specific citywide accomplishment you'd like to make happen by the end of your term? (25 words)

Stone: I would like to create and see through the recommendations of a Blue Ribbon Commission to determine how the Park Board and city can function more effectively.

Kummer: The most significant accomplishment citywide would be clarification of the state statutes regarding the relationship between the city and the MPRB. I will work hard to clean up the inconsistencies that have occurred over time.

Barland: That every child, 16 or under, in Minneapolis will have participated in at least one program offered by our park system and that most return!