Category: 2018 Archives

2018 Archived MGB Facebook posts

August 8, 2018

PRELIMINARY STAFF PROPOSAL ON THE 2019 TAX LEVY Monday night offered two options, a 6.72% increase over 2018 or a 5% increase. Both are too high, as they always are on the first go-round. Minnetrista has seen growth this past year in new residences and obviously needs to provide city services to those additional residents and will, of course, require a budget increase to do so. But most of the city’s market valuation growth has been from the rise in property values on previously existing properties. Total market valuation growth this past year has been approximately 7.5% (approx. 2.5% from new and 5% from existing properties).

I suggested Monday night that a levy increase of 4.5% should more than adequately provide services for both existing and new residents in Minnetrista (2.5% increase for growth plus 2% inflationary increase). I also identified some items in the proposed budget that need to be evaluated. A tax levy increase does not, necessarily, translate to higher taxes paid if the levy increase stays in line and tracks closely with population growth. Residents are encouraged to attend upcoming public hearings on the 2019 tax levy. Watch for those dates here and on the City of Minnetrista’s website.

August 8, 2018

GOLF CARTS WILL NO LONGER BE PROHIBITED in Minnetrista after an ordinance that was initially approved Monday night is adopted. The motion made (passed 5-0) simply removes the golf cart prohibition from city code. By just removing the prohibition and not addressing golf cart use on city roads it allows residents to operate golf carts as they have in the past but without violating Minnetrista’s city code. More importantly it won’t require residents to purchase a permit for them. Public safety officers will still be able to ticket for violations such as reckless driving, failure to observe traffic signals, etc.

August 6, 2018

Poll results on the golf cart issue show overwhelmingly, by close to a 2:1 ratio, Minnetrista residents do not support a new ordinance requiring golf carts to register and pay for a permit to operate on city streets. My guess is the ratio would be closer to 100:1 if the poll were restricted to golf cart owners. We don’t need another level of bureaucracy simply because a developer (who doesn’t live here) wants it. I hope city council listens to it’s residents tonight.

July 20, 2018

MINNETRISTA RESIDENTS WERE PRETTY CLEAR RESPONDING TO THE COMMUNITY SURVEY QUESTION ON COMPLETING THE GUN RANGE IN OUR PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING. OVERWHELMINGLY THEY DIDN’T WANT TAX DOLLARS SPENT ON IT but they did indicate support to finish it if grants or outside funding could be found. What the community survey didn’t tell them was how much the ongoing operation and maintenance expenses would be and where that money would come from. Would they have indicated support if they thought taxpayer dollars would be required for that? How about if they knew the operation and maintenance costs would, over time, be far more than the cost to build out the gun range?

One of the reasons I voted against spending close to $20K (an outrageous amount) on the community survey is it can be used to justify spending on things respondents aren’t fully informed about. The way a question is asked can make certain answers more probable. Leaving out negative information or only stressing benefits about something can quickly make survey results invalid.

I think everyone agrees it would be nice to have a gun range for officer training and public use donated to the city. But unless we can produce a business case showing the revenue from it would cover the ongoing operation and maintenance costs it would be irresponsible to complete it. Right now the city spends less than a couple hundred dollars annually on gun range fees for officer training due to a very generous arrangement it has with a local gun club.

This agenda item will be coming back to the city council soon and I hope we can all agree that the ongoing operation and maintenance costs must be covered 100% by user fees (or other non-taxpayer revenue) in order to approve any proposal to complete the gun range.

July 19, 2018

A REQUEST BY A MINNETRISTA HOUSING DEVELOPER WAS RECEIVED BY THE CITY ASKING IT TO FORMALLY AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF GOLF CARTS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE/LICENSE THEM THROUGHOUT THE CITY. The reason for the request is potential home buyers either have golf carts or want to buy them and would feel better knowing they are legal. The developer offered to pay the city’s cost for drafting a new ordinance.

There happens to be a state law that essentially makes the operation of golf carts on city streets anywhere in Minnesota illegal unless a city has an ordinance specifically authorizing their use. Such an ordinance would require golf cart owners to register and pay for a permit to operate on Minnetrista city streets. Minnetrista currently has no such ordinance specifically authorizing golf carts and despite their widespread use has never issued a citation for their operation on city streets.

Golf carts have never really been an issue in Minnetrista since most owners are responsible and use common sense in their operation. They’re generally used without incident locally to transport things around farms or to boat launches and don’t go fast enough to hurt anything. It makes one wonder why it’s necessary to regulate golf carts at all, which are actually slower than bicycles and involved in far fewer accidents.

What one thinks of the state law is irrelevant since Minnetrista has no choice but to be governed by it. We do have a choice, however, of whether we impose permit fees on golf cart owners who have for many years been freely operating their carts in Minnetrista.

Is it a legitimate role of a city council to impose fees upon constituents for the convenience of a housing developer? This is not, and never has been, a safety concern. How many hours of staff time would be required to process new permits, renew expired ones, maintain records and enforce the new rules governing where and when they can be driven and under what circumstances? We’ve been told the revenue from the permits would cover the staff time but this revenue comes from resident’s pockets and that’s the bigger concern.

Governmental jurisdictions pass laws all the time they don’t enforce consistently and some they don’t enforce at all. I’m generally of the opinion we shouldn’t pass laws we don’t intend to enforce but in this case the state statute isn’t something we, as a city, can change.

Let’s not create more government red tape when there are no safety reasons to do so. Our current city code on this matter has served the community well over the years and there isn’t any good reason to change it. A good reason to change something requires a benefit to the community at large and my guess is most Minnetrista residents with golf carts and even those without wouldn’t see it that way.

July 13, 2018

WE NEED ANSWERS to these questions before taking additional steps toward spending millions on another water tower and treatment plant in the Southwest sector:

1. Minnetrista’s new 2040 Comprehensive plan shows a total number of municipal water connections in 2015 as 1,648 but the commissioned study shows far fewer connections at 1,245 in 2015. We should have accurate data from 2015. Why are these numbers so different? When I see discrepancies like this it doesn’t give me confidence in our growth projections.

2. According to Minnetrista’s 2040 Comprehensive plan there has been a downward trend in Total per capita and Maximum Daily Water Demands for the past several years. Why does the commissioned study show Maximum Daily Per Capita Water use increasing by 78% in 2016 (from 198gpd to 353gpd)? Are these estimates or actual numbers, and if actual what was the cause of the dramatic rise?

3. Why are the Maximum Daily Demand numbers missing for 2011? All years preceding and post are there. We should have this number in our system.

4. If a new tower is built what would the estimated average cost be for city water users? What is the best case scenario (we reach growth projections anticipated) and worst case (we don’t). I’m asking for estimates, not actuals. I realize there are unknowns (interest rates, timeframe, construction costs, possible land acquisition) but we need to do a business case/risk analysis before going forward. Let’s identify the variables, plug estimates in and figure it out.

5. Will the cost for the new water tower and its maintenance be spread across all city water users or only those in the SW sector that are served by that system?

6. What is our break-even point, i.e., when we have enough new water connections and users to pay the debt service on the revenue bonds (money borrowed to build tower)?

7. How many new water connections are anticipated in the SW each year? What is the Average Water Use per connection in the SW? Have we asked the builders (Matamy, HP Holdings, etc) for their new construction estimates? It isn’t enough to just look at the total number of building permits throughout the entire city in projecting future growth and water use. Some of our past growth has occurred in other parts of the city. There is also the fact of diminishing land available for growth in the SW. Growth cannot be projected to continue steadily forever as it will undoubtedly diminish over time as this area reaches capacity.

8. Are we pulling annual water usage only on connections that were active for the entire year? If we’re not then the Average Daily Water Use Per Connection numbers are not accurate in the commissioned water study.

July 8, 2018

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS INVESTIGATION: Send your comments on service quality, customer service or billing practices before October 3, 2018. Include MPUC Docket# P407,405/CI-18-122 and your name.

ONLINE: www.mn.gov/puc then select Speak Up! to find docket# 18-122
EMAIL: consumer.puc@state.mn.us
US MAIL: MN Public Utilities Commission, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, St Paul, MN 55101

Public hearings are also scheduled in Ely, Slayton, McGregor, Lakeville, and Wyoming, MN (see your Frontier Communications bill insert for more information.

June 30, 2018

CLOSED DOOR MEETING ON WATER TOWER. As a result of questions raised about the commissioned water tower study at our last council meeting it was agreed to have some objective eyes review the report and to have the Fire Chiefs from St. Boni and Mound provide guidance on water storage needs for fire suppression. Fire suppression has been the primary reason given in the past for the urgency of a new water tower in the SW sector of the city but recent fire flow tests in that area have shown adequate flow rates well within standard requirements.

As the city council liaison on both the Mound and St. Boni Fire Commissions I informed the City Administrator that I expected to attend any meeting that was called with the two Fire Chiefs on this matter, my goal being to observe and ensure transparency. I was told, in no uncertain terms, he didn’t want me to attend and then I learned he met with both Fire Chiefs yesterday without informing me of the meeting. Not surprised. Millions are on the table and transparency will take a back seat.

As a council member and Minnetrista taxpayer I want to make sure we make decisions on infrastructure projects like this using unbiased advice from entities that don’t stand to profit from resulting contracts. If we legitimately need a water tower to support the SW area then we should build it but when the city insists on closed door meetings and intentionally avoids transparency it can’t help but breed distrust.

June 14, 2018

IF AND WHEN MINNETRISTA NEEDS ANOTHER WATER TOWER. A year ago we were told we desperately needed a new water tower in the southwest corner for fire suppression in the Hunters Crest area. We were told the hydrants there were only putting out 500 gallons per minute (gpm) which wasn’t sufficient and water tanker trucks were still needed for fire calls there. Turns out that’s not true. I requested we have the hydrants tested for flow rates and the report we received actually shows flow rates there of 1000-1200 gpm. So it appears the urgency is no longer an emergency. Don’t expect the urgency to go away though…there are millions of dollars at stake here and we will still see a frantic push to buy land and build a tower anyway. You’ll hear that we urgently need it for future population growth but the historically exaggerated population numbers used (see pop growth chart), even if accepted as accurate, show that need isn’t until 2030 if (and that’s a big if) that growth materializes.

If those inflated population numbers don’t materialize after the city purchases revenue bonds (which are normally paid back with user fees) it will be all Minnetrista taxpayers left holding the bag. We need to make sure, before spending millions on a huge infrastructure project like this, that we are making decisions based on accurate, factual information and not on overblown predictions that may never materialize. We can’t let vendors pressure the city to line their pockets and cause Minnetrista to take on growth just to pay off debt.

No automatic alt text available.