Compost Ordinance Passes

This morning, the Council unanimously passed the compost ordinance I authored.  This is a big deal for Minneapolis, in two important ways.


First, it fits into the broader Homegrown Minneapolis initiative to grow more food in our city.  Much of our soil is compacted, depleted, or contaminated from decades of urban use.  If we really want to grow more healthy local food, first we have to grow more healthy local dirt.  Composting is the best way to do that.


Second, this ordinance fits into the City's broader environmental initiatives.  We have aggressive goals to create less waste - for instance, by burning less garbage.  One of the key ways to increase our diversion rate will be to get the reusable organics out of the waste stream.  And if we're going to compost that material, there is literally no better place to manage it than in our backyards and community gardens, where it's generated.


This ordinance makes major progress on both of those goals.  It dramatically increases the amount of composting folks can do in their backyards, and increases the amount of composting people can do at community gardens even more.  It gives folks flexibility in the design of their composting bins.  It makes clear that people don't need to use (and really shouldn't use) green-treated lumber to build compost bins.  And if folks create problems (odors, attracting pests), our staff can now require that they take a course in how to compost properly.


I want to thank a few people specifically. As I said in the last post, Russ Henry got this initiative started and was an invaluable asset all through the process. Sarah Sponheim presented the environmental/waste reduction case very well in committee. Kirsten Saylor presented the community garden case very well. Beth Dooley and Mustafa Sundiata wrote a great letter from the Food Council. Anna Cioffi successfully organized the grower community to call their Council Members on this. Eric Larsen, Nate Watters and others from Stone’s Throw farm helped write the ordinance amendments and organize support around them.




On the staff side, Patrick Hanlon did a great job presenting to committee, assisted by JoAnn Velde. Aly Pennucci prepped some very effective sample site plans that really helped make clear what the amendment would do. My Policy Aide, Robin Garwood, provided irreplaceable coordination and leadership throughout the process. Ginny Black from the MPCA and John Jaimez from Hennepin County vetted the ordinance and Ginny gave us a formal letter of support.




I look forward to having similar success on the Urban Agriculture Text Amendments next Council cycle.

Earth Hour

The Council has again adopted a resolution supporting Earth Hour.  On March 31, from 8:30pm-9:30pm, the City will participate in Earth Hour by turning off all uses of electricity in municipal buildings not required for life, safety or operations, and will turn off the decorative lighting on the Stone Arch Bridge for the entire night as a symbol of the City’s commitment to being part of the solution to climate change.

The resolution also honors the major downtown buildings that are participating in Earth Hour.  See a list below the fold.
Read more »

CeCe McDonald

I am adding my voice to the growing number of those speaking up to support CeCe McDonald and call for fairness, transparency and expediency in her case. Chrishaun CeCe McDonald’s case started with a tragic incident that occurred last summer that left one person dead.


The basic facts don’t seem to be an issue in this case that now centers on CeCe, a 23 year-old African-American transgender woman charged with second-degree murder.

According to Outfront Minnesota, “CeCe and several of her friends, who are all African-American, were walking by a bar in South Minneapolis early on the morning of June 5, 2011 when the incident occurred. A group of much older bar patrons standing outside the bar verbally assaulted CeCe and her friends with transphobic and racist slurs: “faggots,” “niggers,” “chicks with dicks” and more. That group, led by 47-year-old Dean Schmitz of Richfield—a man with a swastika tattooed on his chest, remarked that Cece was dressed “like a woman” in order to rape him. Another member of the group removed CeCe’s jacket and hit CeCe in the face with a glass beer mug which shattered on impact and tore a hole through CeCe’s cheek. In the ensuing melee Schmitz was stabbed and killed.”

It appears that CeCe was the victim of a hate crime that involved many people but she was the only person held by the police. Here is another example transgender women of color being targeted for hate- and bias-related violence. It is unfortunate that in this case, as in so many, the hate crime itself appears to have been ignored. All reports indicate that after her arrest she was held in solitary confinement and denied adequate medical care for her injuries.

I stand in solidarity with CeCe, her family, Outfront Minnesota and a growing number of people in the community who are working to ensure that she is treated with dignity and respect and has access to safe and supportive legal services. This matter should be resolved quickly and fairly, so that she and her family can go on with their lives, without a prolonged court case and trial looming over their heads.

For more information you can find visit here.

Vikings Stadium - Another Deal

The Governor, Mayor Rybak, and the Vikings have come out with a deal.  Unfortunately, it changed very little from the previous proposal that the Mayor and Council President presented several weeks ago to the Council's Committee of the Whole.  I had hoped that the fact that seven Council Members had gone on record at that meeting opposing the plan would have inspired some compromises and changes on key objections, including the refusal to put it to a referendum, but, regrettably, it did not.


I continue to oppose any scheme for the City of Minneapolis to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars ($338.7 million in this proposal), to a private enterprise without a referendum.  It is also worth noting that the City Finance Director estimates that that $338.7 in present day dollars will actually amount to $650 million by the time everything is paid off in 2046. I will not vote for this plan.


One reason why I oppose this plan is because I think it disproportionately and unfairly punishes Minneapolis in general, but downtown area residents, businesses and visitors in particular. According to one recent report, we are already one of the highest, if not the highest, taxed downtowns in the nation.


The most important reason I will vote no is that I believe a yes vote would be in direct violation of the spirit of the City's charter, which calls for a referendum on support for stadiums over $10 million.  There may be legal loopholes that allow stadium proponents to think they can get away with this, but it's clearly not in keeping with the spirit.


This whole debate highlights a philosophical divide on where Minneapolis city government gets its authority  to govern.  It's true that we are a creation of the Legislature, empowered by them to be a self-governing municipality.  It's also true that we have our own fundamental compact between the people of Minneapolis and their government, in the form of the Charter.  We exist in a critical nexus between the power of institutions above us and the grassroots beneath.


The question is: which is more important?  Should the City of Minneapolis be seen mostly as a creation of the Legislature, which we can and should ask to meddle in our affairs to get around our laws and even our Charter when it's deemed to be convenient?  Or should the City be seen mostly as a creation of the people of Minneapolis, whom we are elected to represent?  Put differently, do we get our power from the top down, or from the bottom up?


I believe our authority - in both legal and moral terms - comes from the bottom up.  The key value of Grassroots Democracy that guides my work helps inform this perspective.  The City of Minneapolis exists to serve our residents and businesses, not as a projection of power down from the state.


From this bottom-up perspective, it's clear that while we arguably can go to the Legislature and ask them to preempt our Charter, we should not do so.


This isn't just an ethical argument, either.  It's a strategic one.  Right now, municipalities in Michigan face the real prospect of having their local governments disbanded and replaced with a state-appointed "manager."  When the City plays with this kind of fire, there is a risk that we might get burned.


The argument that stadium supporters are making - that sales tax dollars have really always been State tax dollars, and we've just been using them - is quite a stretch.  The State authorized the City to impose a sales tax.  The City then decided, by ordinance, to impose that tax.  We then used it for a City-controlled facility (the Convention Center) for decades.  But those were actually State tax dollars all along!


It's a slippery-slope sort of argument.  If it's true for the downtown sales taxes, why isn't it true for all taxes levied by the City of Minneapolis?  How do we draw that line, from this point onward?


And so we see quotes like this gem from Ted Mondale: "The money is never touched by the city.  The state in the end spends the money. So therefore the city's not spending money."  It sounds akin to defending embezzlement by saying: "I didn't take the money from you. Your never touched the money. I took it from your bank account."


There are other specifics of this deal that I question.  How is it that the same sales taxes that currently pay for the Convention Center will be extended to pay for the Vikings Stadium, Target Center, and continue to pay for the Convention Center?  Is it at all reasonable to expect that this taffylike extension of those tax dollars will actually meet all of those demands?  Or will some portion of those three major liabilities outpace the limited resources?  Is Minneapolis alone in shouldering this risk, as it appears?  (Note that under this deal, the State of Minnesota has no ongoing operating maintenance responsibilities.)


The plan is being sold as requiring "no new taxes" at the local level.  But what happens if and when there are maintenance overruns?  What tax dollars will be used to hold the Convention Center, Target Center and Vikings Stadium harmless?


We're being asked to take on outsized risk, in clear violation of the spirit (and possibly also the letter) of our Charter, in order to give hundreds of millions of public dollars to a private enterprise.  I suspect that the legislature could craft the law to not even require a vote from the Council.  But so far the governor and the leading legislators have said that will not do that.  They believe that a special law like this needs to have local government approval.  I believe it also needs the approval of the people.

Urban Agriculture Text Amendments at Z&P

At the end of a record-breaking Zoning and Planning committee meeting (five and a half hours long!) the committee continued the Urban Agriculture zoning code text amdendments until its next meeting on March 22nd.  Before tabling it, the committee received some possible amendments that will be voted on on the 22nd.  You can find them here under item 6.

I'm going to briefly describe the four amendments and one motion below, and then offer some reaction and analysis of each.  The first three are from Council Member Tuthill:

1) Limit Hoop Houses to six feet, everywhere in the city.  (Hoop houses are temporary season extension structures that are often constructed in half-cylinder shapes from metal braces and covered in transparent plastic sheeting.)

Analysis: this is a bad idea, for many reasons.  Growers have been very clear that six foot tall hoop houses will not meet their needs, making this effectively a ban on hoop houses in the city.  As such, this amendment would significantly damage our chances of having any meaningful season extension - and given our cold climate, that's a real blow to the whole idea of local foods.

It's interesting to note that all other accessory structures (sheds, pergolas, etc) in Minneapolis can be up to 12 feet tall.  In fact, someone could construct a 12' tall hoop house in their backyard today.  These are available, as well: there are hoop house kits for sale in local stores that are over 6 feet tall.

One of CM Tuthill's key arguments is that we don't allow fences to be over 6' tall, and that we should protect people from seeing hoop houses over their neighbors fences.  It's true that we don't allow tall privacy fences in Minneapolis, but because we allow accessory structures to be 12' tall, many residents can see their neighbors' accessory structures today.  I have a childrens' play structure in my yard that's over 6' tall.  Should we really be protecting my neighbor from its unsightliness?

Lastly, this amendment ignores that there are different uses and different zoning districts in the city.  I would be open to a limited height for hoop houses in backyards, perhaps even as low as six and a half feet (the height of the commercially available versions).  But market and community gardens - whose whole purpose is to grow food - should be allowed more height, something like 10 feet.  And urban farms, which must be in industrial or commercial zones and which would be allowed to have much more intense uses, should be allowed the full 12 feet.

2) Reduce sale days at market gardens to two 72-hour periods every year. 

Analysis: This is also a bad idea.  The staff recommendation is 25 days, or about once a week during the growing season.

Many market gardeners will bring most of their produce to sell it elsewhere - farmers markets, restaurants, grocery stores, etc.  But some market gardeners will also want to have some limited opportunities to sell directly to their neighbors.  This amendment would effectively ban that.

One argument CM Tuthill has made is that this is the current zoning restriction on yard sales (twice per year, 72 hours at a time).  This argument doesn't work, though, for a very simple reason: farmstands are not yard sales.  Two 72-hour garage sales per year are enough for most residents.  We're hearing loud and clear from growers that a similar time wouldn't be sufficient for them.  Yard sales have an arguably greater impact on their neighbors, with racks of clothing and tables of other items out on the lawn.  Farm stands would be prohibited from taking place in the required front yard, meaning that any customer would have to walk up onto the lot, rather than being able to buy something right on the sidewalk.  Additionally, the farm stand is only allowed to sell products grown on site. Holding yard sales and farmstands to the same standard just doesn't make sense.

Lastly, it's important to recognize one of the key motivations of some market gardeners and their supporters.  In addition to increasing production of local produce, they want to increase access to it.  Even with the mini markets and the City's work on produce in corner stores, there are still parts of our city with too little access to produce.  One way that other cities (like Seattle) have addressed this problem is by allowing market gardeners in those communities to sell directly to their neighbors.

I might be willing to compromise down from 25 to a slightly smaller number of days, but two is just unreasonable.

3) Establish material standards for raised beds in front yards.  Raised beds would be required to be made of "wood, brick, masonry, landscape timbers or synthetic lumber," and would not be allowed to be made of "wire, chicken wire, rope, cable, railroad ties, utility poles, or any other similar materials."  Any wood used would be required to be "resistant to decay."

Analysis: this idea is fine in concept, but I do have some concerns about the specifics.  Having standards makes sense, especially if there have been concerns about some residents' choices of materials for their raised beds.

However, some of the specific language might be overly restrictive.  I don't see a problem with the list of prohibited materials - ruling out both highly permeable materials and wood treated by toxic chemicals seems smart - but the list of required materials might not be inclusive enough.  (Also, if we have a list of prohibitions, why do we need a list of requirements as well?)

I'll give a concrete example.  Actually, it's a metal example.  Russ Henry, a local landscape company owner and member of both the Minneapolis Food Council and Environmental Advisory Committee, has installed some beautiful planters on the Seward Coop's property and boulevard.  They're made of what seems to be iron, and have a very interesting rusty red finish.  It seems to me that CM Tuthill's list of materials would rule out these lovely planters, and possibly even require them to be removed.  I represent Seward, and have received no complaints about those planters.  In fact, I've heard from people that they really like them.  If we're going to adopt a list of allowable materials, it has to be comprehensive enough to include these sorts of creative solutions that don't cause problems and complaints.

Lastly, I have concerns about using the phrase "resistant to decay" when talking about wood.  The only way to make most wood that is in direct contact with soil resistant to decay is to treat it with toxic chemicals.  The same impulse that seems to have driven the ban on utility poles and railroad ties should pull us back from enacting this requirement.

Luckily, this is something that the Council has just addressed on a different subject - composting.  One of the recommendations from the composters was that the City stop requiring (or even seeming to require) green-treated lumber in the construction of compost bins, due to the concern that it will contaminate the compost.  There is an extremely simple solution: rather than requiring that the wood be resistant to rot, just require that it not be rotten.  This gives our staff the same capacity to make someone fix a rotted raised bed, but doesn't indicate that folks should build their beds out of lumber that might cause problems.

***

I also put out an amendment and a staff direction.

The staff direction was for Planning staff to ensure that the Temporary Use Permit application require prospective farmstand operators (selling food from their market garden) to notify their near neighbors, the neighborhood organization, and their Council Member's office.  I believe staff would've required much of this anyway, but I wanted to make sure it's clear that folks will hear about these activities before they happen, and that they'll have a chance to have a conversation with market gardeners.  My hope is that conversation between neighbors can disarm any friction a farmstand might cause.

The amendment would establish a maximum size for market gardens.  The staff proposal is for market gardens up to 10,000 square feet of growing area to be permitted uses.  This means that they won't have to ask anyone's permission or apply for anything, just go ahead and grow.  Above 10,000 square feet, staff are recommending that market gardens require a Conditional Use Permit (or CUP).  This is a process that costs over $500 and requires a public hearing, and gives the City the chance to place conditions on an activity.

I'd heard that some of my concerns about the maximum size of market gardens.  One suggestions was to limit them to 10,000 square feet in low-density residential areas.  I heard from growers that that would be a major problem for them; some market gardeners are already pursuing leases at lots with more growing space than 10,000 square feet.  I also heard from growers that the largest conceivable market garden in the foreseeable future is one acre. 

So I have drafted an amendment that would continue to permit market gardens from 0-10,000 square feet, require a CUP for gardens between 10,000 and 43,000 square feet, and cap the maximum size at 43,000 square feet.

Again, all of these will be discussed in greater detail at the Zoning and Planning committee meeting on March 22nd. It is also possible that more amendments could be brought forward then. Assuming that the item is moved forward by the committee, it could also be amended at the subsequent Council meeting on March 30th.

Governor Vetoes Shoot First

I want to thank Governor Dayton for vetoing the terrible Shoot First bill yesterday.  As much as we might disagree about the City's role in financing a stadium for the Vikings, I'm glad he's there to block bills like this from becoming law.

Bottom line: this bill would have made Minneapolis residents much less safe.  It would have increased the risks to Minneapolis police officers.  It would have done away with any expectation that people in threatening situations seek to leave the situation before resorting to deadly force.  It would have opened Minnesota up to a flood of guns from other states with much less stringent licensing requirements and made it harder to remove guns from households with domestic violence problems.

And it's just not necessary. Even the bill's most fervent backers admit that no one in Minnesota has been unfairly prosecuted for shooting someone in self defense.  So if there isn't actually a "castle doctrine" problem to be solved, what's the point of this whole exercise?

Obviously, the point is to incrementally erode what's left of Minnesota's common sense gun controls, bringing us down to the level of other, more dangerous states.  And to curry favor with powerful special interests like the NRA who do not have the best interests of Minnesota residents in mind.

I must admit that this whole debate is mystifying to me.  Months after a three-year-old child was tragically killed by a stray bullet in Minneapolis, is the most important issue for legislators to address really that not enough people are being shot in the state of Minnesota?

Civilian Review at Risk in the Legislature

The Minnesota Legislature is considering a terrible bill that would dramatically weaken the Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority by preventing it from making findings of fact (as authorized by the Minneapolis CRA ordinance).  As someone who has fought to strengthen the CRA, I strongly oppose this awful idea.  It’s interesting to note that it is not supported by any members of the Minneapolis legislative delegation.  I find it very disappointing that some any members of the legislature have signed on as supporters of this.

Another Terrible Bill: Rulemaking Moratorium

The Republicans in the state legislature have introduced yet another ill-conceived bill that would impose an unnecessary and destructive moratorium on rulemaking by state agencies. 

Among other things, this would stop work on the Pollution Control Agency’s amendments to their composting rules which would, ironically, significantly loosen the existing regulations on composting businesses both large and small.  So in an effort to prevent government from getting in the way, they're inadvertently keeping government from getting out of the way. 

That’s the kind of unintended consequence that results from this sort of broad-brush anti-government extremism, and shows what happens when the Legislature is controlled by folks who seem to have no real interest in governing.  It's good to see that no DFLers have signed on to this one.

Tenants Rights Meeting March 27

In light of the concerns I heard at the most recent meeting about the Riverside Plaza renovation project, my office has scheduled a public meeting for West Bank residents regarding tenants’ rights on Tuesday, March 27 at 7pm at the Brian Coyle Center. City staff and legal experts will be there to help people understand their rights as tenants and what they can do if they have concerns about their housing, maintenance, management or landlords.

Solar on Fire Station 19

In February new solar installation was put on Fire Station 19 to provide electricity and hot water to the building. The station is one of six Minneapolis buildings that have new solar installations funded by a grant from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act through the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and using Xcel Energy rebates. The roof of Fire Station No. 19 features 58 new solar electric panels, which will provide 9.83 kilowatts of power, and three solar thermal panels, which will provide the fire station with 50 to 70 percent of its hot water needs.

CLIC Appointee Needed

Seward resident Becca Vargo-Daggett, who was one of my appointees to the Capital Long Range Improvement Committee (or CLIC), has moved out of Minneapolis.  I thank her for her years of service on CLIC and wish her well.

I need a new CLIC appointee, and I am looking for someone from the west side of the river – Seward, the West Bank, or Cooper.  CLIC makes recommendations to the City Council and Mayor on capital improvement program development and annual capital improvement budgets, and has tremendous influence on the infrastructure investments the City makes.  If you are interested, please contact my office, or apply here.

Sabo Bridge

As I’m sure you’ve heard, the Martin Olav Sabo bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Highway 55 suffered a critical failure of two of its support cables on Sunday, February 18^th.  Public works staff presented an update to Council yesterday that you can read here.

The Sabo bridge's problems disrupted traffic on Highway 55 and operations on the Hiawatha LRT for a little more than a week.  Public Works staff have responded quickly and professionally to this unexpected problem, shoring up the bridge and getting traffic and LRT service reopened as soon as possible. 

Problems with other cables and their connections to the bridge have been discovered, and the City has hired a contractor to investigate what caused these failures.  These cables are a little over five years old, and were inspected just last year and found to be in good condition.  The bridge itself is closed to bicycle and pedestrian traffic indefinitely. 

I support this important and highly visible investment in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and I’m confident that we will be able to isolate the cause of these failures and make the repairs necessary to reopen it.  I am confident that the costs of the repairs will be covered by whichever party is found by the investigation currently underway to have caused the problems with these cables.

Urban Ag in the Press

The Urban Agriculture Text Amendments that come to the Zoning and Planning committee tomorrow are getting a lot of press this week. John Tevlin from the Star Tribune has an article out, as does MinnPost. These join an earlier editorial from the MN Daily in favor of the amendments and article in the Daily Planet (reposted from the Daily).

It's great to see this attention to the issue. For one thing, it helps rebut one of the arguments being made by opponents of the text amendments: that "regular people" just haven't heard about them. It also helps get some of the specific proposals to weaken the amendments out on the table.

I wanted to clarify a few points. I'm quoted twice in the Tevlin piece. The first of those quotes refers to the "doomsday scenarios" being peddled by some urban agriculture opponents. I used that phrase to refer to a specific fear: that if the Council allows market gardens in low-density residential areas, they might take up whole city blocks.

That's just not at all likely to happen. Market gardeners will have to rent or buy pieces of land like anyone else, and the fear that such a low-margin economic activity will crowd out other uses (like single family homes) is just not reasonable. Remember, we're not talking about giving or leasing these folks City-owned land. We're talking about allowing them to rent from private property owners to engage in a job-producing economic activity.

I'm also quoted referring to a study that indicates that the concern about displacement of other uses is unfounded. That study is the Land Capacity Analysis which was completed as part of the Urban Agriculture Policy Plan that the Council unanimously adopted last year. Its key finding is that we have more than enough vacant land to accommodate the expected growth over the next 20 years. From the Executive Summary of the Analysis (emphasis added):

During the next 20 years, forecasts for the City and current land supply data
suggest that city will have more than enough developable land to accommodate growth (Exhibit S-1). Demand for new space would be expected to require between 316 and 568 acres of land, depending on how densely developers build, in terms of housing units per acre, or building square feet per acre of land. Vacant land (779 acres), excess land on developed lots (or infill land, 287 acres) and land that ranks high for redevelopment (includes demolitions or expansions, 163
acres) total 1,229 acres, resulting in surplus land through 2030 of 661 to 914
acres.

Six hundred and sixty-one acres is more than twenty-eight million square feet. If the average market garden is 10,000 square feet, that's about three thousand of them.

We're at no risk of becoming Detroit, but there is land available in Minneapolis for market gardening. The choice for the Council to make about this land is not between a market garden and a single family home, but between a market garden and a vacant lot. From my perspective - and the perspective of growers, would-be growers, and the people we hear from in Ward 2 - market gardens are preferable to vacant lots.

Compost Ordinance

The Council's Regulatory Energy and Environment passed the compost ordinance I authored this afternoon unanimously (with one abstention).  You can read the full text of the ordinance, the staff report, a helpful Powerpoint presentation, and see some sample site plans.

The purpose of these changes is to increase the amount of composting that folks can do in the city and increase the flexibility of composting, while providing additional authorities to our staff to respond to anyone who is composting incorrectly and creating a nuisance.  So the maximum sizes of backyard composting sites will increase, and the maximum size at community gardens will increase even more.  The compost areas can be in whatever shapes work for composters (rather than the old 5'x5'x5' bins that were required by ordinance).  But composters must now cover their compost materials with an odor-reducing layer of dry leaves or wood chips, and if our staff find that folks are composting improperly we can require them to take an educational course on composting correctly.

These changes came from recommendations from community gardens and urban farmers, and were vetted by City, County, and Pollution Control Agency staff.  Two folks stand out for special thanks: Patrick Hanlon from Environmental Management, who did a great job shepherding this through committee today, and Russ Henry, a small business person who owns Giving Tree Gardens and serves on the Minneapolis Food Council and Environmental Advisory Committee.

I hope and expect that these amendments will pass the full Council on March 8.

Paying for Wi-Fi That We Don't Use

The Star Tribune has run an article on the consequences of the Council's misguided decision in 2006 to become the "anchor tenant" for the privately-owned USI Wireless internet system: the City has paid over $4 million for wi-fi services that we have not used.

I consider this an enormous waste, whether the City ends up spending these credits or not.  Over the last five years, the Council has made numerous difficult decisions to close down services or cease providing support for extremely worthwhile programs in order to save much smaller sums of money.  Just recently, we closed down the Housing Support Services office for less.  We've ceased supporting Restorative Justice to the tune of even $20,000 per year.  We've recently ended our support for community organizing in public housing for only $68,000 per year.  We've had bitter fights over laying off firefighters to fill budget holes smaller than this.

And as bad as $4.7 million over five years sounds, the actual numbers are even worse.  Remember, one of the key arguments for signing onto this deal was that the money we'd be paying to USI would be offset by savings elsewhere in the City's budget, as departments switched from existing systems (cell phones, etc) to Wi-Fi solutions.  But it's obvious that none of those savings have materialized, as we're only using 11% of the bandwidth we pay for.  It would take some time and some digging to find all of the costs that we were assured Wi-Fi would supplant but have instead continued, but it is likely to be millions of additional dollars.

Back in 2006, I was the only Council Member to vote against the Wi-Fi deal with USI.  I voted no because the City had never done a meaningful study of a public ownership model for Wi-Fi.  The leadership of the City's BIS department - all of which has long since left, mostly for high-paid gigs with private companies - dismissed the idea of public ownership out of hand.  It seemed obvious to them, and to most of my colleagues, that for the City to own our own Wi-Fi infrastructure was impossible, out of the question, not even worth exploring.

Now the people of Minneapolis read this:

"While many cities have ventured into Wi-Fi, Minneapolis' problem is unique. California-based broadband consultant Craig Settles said many cities own the Wi-Fi network they use for city services. He knew of no others that made a long-term commitment of recurring payments to a private company." [Emphasis added]

So the option that was sold to the people of Minneapolis as the only responsible way forward, the lowest-risk alternative, the obvious and sole reasonable choice, has actually turned out to be a) completely unique and b) an incredibly expensive waste for the City of Minneapolis and our taxpayers.

How do we get ourselves out of this mess?  I don't believe we even built an option to purchase the system into the contract.  It's clear from the article ("[USI Wireless CEO Joe Caldwell ] believes the city's excess bandwidth won't be wasted, since USI might agree to continue carrying it forward when the contract is renegotiated in 2018") that USI is assuming this boondoggle will be carried over after the contract ends in 2018.  Given that that's another six years from now, how large will the credit be by then?  If the last five years are any guidance, we'll be looking at a more than $9 million credit.  If we walk away from the contract, USI is very likely to keep that money, so they have us over a barrel in negotiations.  (Just note the strategic "might" in the quote above!)


But I am just as worried about the alternative: madly using as much bandwidth as we can, to get up to the amount we're obligated to buy, and trying to spend our way through the backlog of credits.  In order not to look so stupid for purchasing Wi-Fi services that we don't use, I fear that we will start using services that we don't need. 

I see that mentality in the quotes from both our CIO Otto Doll ("I think it's going to be really difficult to get all the way up there") and my colleague Gary Schiff (the usage is "definitely too small").  I see things differently.  It's not that our usage has been "too small," it's that the amount we have been paying USI too much.  And it's not that we need to "get all the way up" to using more Wi-Fi bandwidth, but that we need a contract that allows us to pay for only what we need.


But I do agree with Otto and Gary on some of their other statements.  Gary notes that "certain assumptions when we signed the contract were just impossible to meet," and Otto describes the projections as "real loose."  Indeed.  I was warning that these assumptions had not been adequately vetted and that the projections were questionable at the time.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with my ally on this issue back in 2006, Becca Vargo Daggett: this isn't really an anchor tenancy, it's a subsidy.  We have transferred public dollars to a private company for little return for our taxpayers. 

It didn't have to be this way.  I offered another way forward: before rushing into this contract with USI, take three short months to do a serious study of public ownership.  Perhaps it wouldn't have panned out.  But perhaps it would have prevented us from spending $4.7 million for literally nothing.

The statement I put out after the Wi-Fi vote seems prescient.  Here's the full text:

***

Wi-Fi Statement.

One of the most important principles of good governance is that elected policymakers should make decisions based on the most complete data possible.


I believe that the previous City Council did not meet this standard when it decided to proceed with the Request for Proposals (RFP) process to build a private wireless broadband internet system in Minneapolis.

There are three basic options facing the City for the future of broadband in Minneapolis.

1) The status quo, in which City needs (for emergency responders and inspection staff, primarily) are not met and no broadband umbrella exists for resident users.

2) The proposed privately-owned broadband system in which the City would be an anchor tenant.

3) Publicly-owned broadband infrastructure in which the city would meet its own needs and charge Internet Service Providers use fees to use the system to meet resident needs.

We have relatively good information on options one and two. However, we do not have reliable information on option three. I have heard numerous conflicting assertions about the public ownership model from City staff, other Council Members and residents of Minneapolis, including residents of my Ward. None of the assertions operate from the same understanding of the basic facts.

The City Council cannot make an informed decision between two radically different ownership models for this important infrastructure without a common, substantiated understanding of the facts. We can’t make an informed choice between these two models without comparing their costs, risks and benefits.

I therefore call on my colleagues to support a study of the public ownership model, to last no longer than three months. Such a study would answer the following questions:

- How much would it cost to build public wireless infrastructure that would meet the City’s internal needs and provide potential service to all Minneapolis residents?
- What are the breakdowns of those costs (i.e. x% for the fiber optic backbone, y% for towers, etc.)
- What is the annual debt service on a ten-year bond for that amount?
- How much revenue could the city count on from use fees?
- How much would the city be charged for contracted-out maintenance and upkeep?
- What is the likely average annual cost for a private Minneapolis resident to use the wireless broadband system?

The following questions about the current proposed privately-owned system:

- How much will the city be charged per year to meet its internal needs?
- What is the likely average annual cost for a private Minneapolis resident to use the wireless broadband system?

Once these questions have been answered, the City Council can in good conscience claim to have made this extremely important public policy decision in an appropriately informed and diligent manner.

Redistricting Underway

The Charter Commission has begun its work on the 2012 redistricting process.  As you may recall, I helped lead the Charter amendment process back in 2009 to do away with the old, broken Redistricting Commission, and instead empower the Charter Commission to redraw Minneapolis' ward boundaries.

The Charter Commission now has a first draft of new boundaries to share with the public, and will be holding public hearings on these draft maps on Februrary 29th and March 1st.  Find out more here.

Additionally, Common Cause MN has put together a website that allows you to draw your own version of a City ward map.  They are organizing two related trainings.  A February 4 training will be held from 10am-noon at the Humphrey School, and will focus on how redistricting works at the local level.  A February 18 training will be held from 9:30am-12:30pm at UROC, and will show attendees how to draw their own maps using this innovative software.

As I have noted previously, the Second Ward will have to get smaller in this redistricting process.  Due to a combination of factors - including many new housing units (over 800), a relatively low housing vacancy rate (4.7%), and population losses in other wards - have left the Second Ward with about 4,000 more people in it than the average ward.  This means that something like a third to a half of a neighborhood will have to be redistricted out of Ward Two and into a neighboring ward.