Jeremy Wieland in his blog What’s Next… writes:
I’ve been following the 8th race also. I don’t have a favorite, but Marie Hauser is running, and given that she has been a participant in Park Board shenanigans, I find it very difficult to understand how we could support her run for City Council. The Minneapolis City Council has worked hard, too slowly at times, but hard nonetheless, to improve on transparency and accountability. The Park Board has done no such thing.
Jeremy Wieland comments in his blog What’s Next… on Crown Hydro:
On the Minneapolis list serv today it was brought to my attention that a Senator is sponsoring an amendment in a spending bill to give a tax break to Crown Hydro for construction of a small hydroelectric facility in Minneapolis. I hope that this is reconsidered. The plan that I was familiar with was for a small facility that wouldn’t support more than one neighborhood, and none of the neighboring neighborhoods wanted the facility. When I was running for City Council I commented “The Crown Hydro project is a more difficult decision. I like the idea. However, the proposed power generator is very small, and is not being developed as part of a larger dispersed micro power generation plan. In context, it is reported to provide power for 2,700 homes, or about one neighborhood, yet neither the downtown nor Marcy-Holmes neighborhoods are supportive. The very people it’s supposed to provide power to don’t want it. Furthermore, the plant is slated for the middle of a residential zone on top of a legitimate archeological site. I’m very open to alternative power generation plans, and would be interested in seeking alternatives…”
This site serves as the hub for news and events relating to the restoration of the Brackett Park rocket in Minneapolis, MN.
Controversial plans to expand DeLaSalle High School’s athletic field onto Nicollet Island park property have taken a step forward, thanks to a June 1 Park Board vote to negotiate a shared-use agreement with the school.
The deal would decide how the school and the public would share costs – even though the sports facility isstill undefined.
DeLaSalle wants to expand its existing field onto 1.7 acres of publicly owned parkland, according to school documents. The area is defined by East Island Avenue, the railroad tracks, and Nicollet and Grove streets. The plan would close part of Grove Street.
The school appears to have a strong bargaining position. According to a Park Board legal opinion, the 1983 Nicollet Island agreement obliges the Park Board to build DeLaSalle an athletic facility. (The agreement between the Park Board and the Minneapolis Community Development Agency set a vision for the island’s redevelopment.)
The field expansion would displace existing Park Board tennis courts and open space. It would allow the school to have football and soccer fields, bleachers seating 750, and practice fields.
The Park Board’s Planning Committee voted 3-2 to direct staff to work with DeLaSalle and hold a public hearing July 20.
Commissioners John Erwin and Annie Young voted no. Erwin said it didn’t make sense to have staff work on a shared-use agreement until the Park Board talked to the public and decided what it wanted on the property.
Commissioners Walt Dziedzic, Bob Fine and Marie Hauser voted to enter negotiations.
“In order to run a race, you need a starting point,” Dziedzic said. “This is a starting point.”
The Board took the vote after nearly two hours of public testimony and committee deliberations. Approximately 100 people attended and 14 people spoke, with a slight edge to those favoring the athletic complex.
What each side wants
The Park Board staff presented a proposed 12-point, 30-year reciprocal agreement with DeLaSalle. The proposal requires DeLaSalle to pay all construction and maintenance costs for the new facility, and pay to relocate two tennis courts. The Park Board would lease – not sell – the parkland. DeLaSalle would get priority during the school year.
The proposal would also open DeLaSalle’s gymnasium to Park Board youth sports, and allow the Park Board free use of the school’s parking lot if it did not conflict with school events. It required DeLaSalle students to give the Park Board 1,000 collective hours of community service annually for events such as youth sports clinics.
The Planning Committee did not vote on the staff proposal.
DeLaSalle submitted a draft written reciprocal-use agreement, though it was not discussed at the meeting. Under the DeLaSalle plan, the Park Board would:
* Construct bleacher seating for spectators;
* Relocate, construct or identify tennis courts on park property for use by DeLaSalle;
* Maintain utilities for park-related activities;
* Provide lighting for pathways; and
* Provide fencing and security as needed to protect the property.
Erwin said voting on a shared-use agreement was “putting the cart before the horse. … We haven’t had a discussion about what we want on this site,” he said. “We haven’t talked to the public.”
Dziedzic moved to have further negotiations and have Park Board and DeLaSalle staff return with a proposal for the public hearing.
After the meeting, Don Siggelkow, Park Board general manager for administration and finance, said he hoped to return July 20 with something similar to what the staff already proposed. He said the proposal would not include a site plan, which would come later.
Asked whether the Park Board would pay for such things as bleacher seating, Siggelkow said it would not agree to use public money for the facility. “We won’t be able to get back in July for a public hearing if they are asking us to invest in it,” he said. “It is not going to happen.”
Michael O’Keefe, DeLaSalle’s vice president of planning and marketing, said the school had not seen the Park Board’s proposal before the June 1 meeting, and the Park Board had not seen DeLaSalle’s proposal.
“It is the beginnings of the discussion of reciprocal use,” he said. “Where we go from there in terms of how the project unfolds, I think will take place over the next six to eight weeks.”
Land swap
A number of issues remain unresolved.
The Park Board used $1.1 million in Metropolitan Parks and Open Space money to buy the land DeLaSalle wants for its field. The land has a restrictive covenant to preserve it as a regional park. The Park Board would have to submit a proposal to the Met Council to release the site for the athletic field, according to an April 14 memo from Met Council President Peter Bell to the Nicollet Island/East Bank Neighborhood Association.
The sports facility may also require state approval since state bonds were used to finance the grants, the memo said. Further, the Park Board would need to provide a land exchange of equally valuable land added to the regional park system, preferably in the same park.
(Nicollet Island has nowhere to add parkland. The Met Council has a special review process to swap land in one regional park for land in another park.)
Siggelkow said the Park Board would seek contingency language with DeLaSalle to void the agreement if it could not get Met Council approvals. It would need a similar contingency if the city of Minneapolis did not approve vacating part of Grove Street.
He was not sure the Park Board needed Met Council approval to convert the land to an athletic complex, Siggelkow said. The Park Board has active sports uses in other regional parks.
It is unclear when the regional park issues will get resolved.
Legal wrangling
People have sharply different views of whether the Park Board has already met its obligation under the 1983 Nicollet Island agreement.
The Park Board released a March 29 analysis by Michael Norton, a former city attorney it hired to review the 22-year-old deal. Norton wrote that the agreement “requires” the Park Board to build DeLaSalle an athletic field – if certain conditions are met. Those include a reciprocal-use agreement.
Norton added that there are, “a number of unresolved legal issues.” The Nicollet Island agreement, which defines the island’s future development, is between the Park Board and the Minneapolis Community Development Agency. DeLaSalle is not a party to the agreement, Norton said. The contract is also subject to amendment.
The 1983 language said, “the Park Board should use its best efforts to construct upon property adjacent to DeLaSalle property an outdoor neighborhood recreational and athletic facility.”
Project opponents, including Island resident and State Rep. Phyllis Kahn, said the 1983 agreement specified DeLaSalle should get a regulation football field and at least two tennis courts – and it already had those.
Sigglekow said he didn’t believe the Park Board had fulfilled the agreement. The football field is on DeLaSalle property, not on adjacent park property as the contract states.
Votes needed
Park Commissioner Vivian Mason said the long-term lease is equivalent to a land sale and ultimately should require a super-majority – six of nine Commissioners – for final approval.
Commissioner Bob Fine said he believed the Park Board already committed to the long-term deal in 1983 and the DeLaSalle deal should only require a five-vote simple majority.
The Park Board would seek a legal opinion, he said.«
All messages in [ brackets ] are comments of the typist……
[4:45 Pre- meeting band concert in the parking lot for visitors and press by the DeLaSalle students]
5:00 Planning committee is called to order by Commissioner Fine who announces that there will be public input allowed on the DeLaSalle action item and there are sign up sheets in the hallway.
Commissioner Young would like to have a plan for this open speaking time so the meeting doesn’t go to midnight
Commissioner Fine would like to see how many speakers sign up first
Commissioner Dziedzic claims he will be making an amendment to the motion if it passes
4.1 That the board approve the schematic plan for the Berger Fountain Rebuild ( this is the dandelion fountain in Loring Park )
Mike Kimble of the MPRB planning department, Merry Keefe of the Save Berger Fountain Group, facilitator to the various neighborhood groups and Robert Cook, architect make the presentation for the new fountain. The dandelion appearance of the fountain will remain, but the splash pools, plaza, orientation toward paths and the greenway and the mechanics will be changed. It was also suggested that the shuffleboard courts be moved. There would be new seating, new lighting for the basin and fountain, and the fountain would be re-engineered to be re-circulating. The various organizations involved would do $1,000,000 in fundraising and would hope to eventually use the Park Foundation as the fiscal agent (a task currently done by the Friends of Loring Park). The current plan is that after the schematic is approved to build a model to help further fundraising.
Commissioner Erwin mentions that the fountain currently costs $15,000 per year for water and electricity and understands the new design will reduce that cost to $7500 a year and thanks the various groups for their effort to save the signature fountain.
Commissioner Young asks if $1,000,000 will be enough.
Ms. Keefe states that $1,000,000 will cover the fountain and plaza redesign and that further fundraising will be done to complete other areas of the plan and that they will work with the MPRB staff on future items.
PASSES
4.2 That the Board approve the terms for the implementation of a Reciprocal Use Agreement with DeLaSalle High School.
Judd Reitkirk Director of Planning gives some background on Nicollet Island complete with old photos and ariel view maps
1977 The Central Riverfront Master Plan is developed
1978 the Met Council Approves $4.5 million for Open Space land acquisition 1980 the MPRB decides to keep the housing on the Island and the Met Council approves and additional $5.4 million for land acquisition 1983 a Contract for Acquisition and Transfer of Lands for Redevelopment by Public Bodies by and between the MCDA and the City of Minneapolis, by and through its Park and Recreation Board is signed [This is the “key” document and DeLaSalle is not one of the parties on the title page so hardly a major player] The Met Council then approves the Nicollet Island Master Plan [ $ 9.9 million in Met Council Open Fund Money which may need to go back ]
Commissioner Dziedzic asks if housing was in the plan?
Director Reitkirk says the original plan did not include housing. [Not specific if it was the draft plan or master he is referring to at this point ]
There is some confusion as to what comes next as Director Reitkirk planned to next defer to the DeLaSalle architect and engineer who in turn defer to Brother Michael Collins who begins his speech. He is interrupted by Commissioner Fine who wants to know where they are in the agenda [There is no public input listed on the agenda and Commissioner Young’s asking to have a plan was ignored so Commissioner Fine is winging it here ] It is determined that the staff portion of the presentation is complete and that Brother Michael does have some time to spare before his duties at DeLaSalle for the evening call him away so the meeting moves on to the DeLaSalle architects.
Kevin Halbach of KKE architects and Jay Pomeroy Landscape Designer and Engineer of Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc make their presentation.
Mr. Halbach states that their are many issues involved and that he sees himself as not only the architect for DeLaSalle but also for the neighborhood and the people of the city and the MPRB and would like to include them as well. The design shown is described as a multipurpose field for softball, soccer, football etc…. The area outside of the field and bleachers would include pathways and pedestrian lighting. The main change will be the closing of Grove Street. There would also be plantings and landscaping, Brother’s Park, recreation and bleacher seating for up to 750 people and would address ADA requirements and safety and security issues.
Mr. Pomeroy then speaks to the loss and possible relocation of the tennis courts and the relocation of the batting cage to a small softball infield.
Commissioner Dziedzic asks about the size of the wall necessary along East Island Av
Mr. Pomeroy says it will range from 6 ft to 10 ft tall but would be sensitive to a historical look
Commissioner Dziedzic then asks how close it will be to the railroad tracks
Mr. Pomeroy says that from the end of the field to the tracks is between 36-40 feet
Commissioner Berry Graves asks if there would be some sort of net at the end of the field by the tracks
Mr. Pomeroy says that yes and it could of a type to come up and down
Commissioner Berry Graves mentions that there is currently parking issues on a day to day basis and how would they be mitigated during games
Commissioner Fine interrupts to give the floor to Commissioner Erwin [ Yeah what about the parking which at the other end of the island is contractually reserved for the Nicollet Island Pavilion and will get you a $235 tow if not followed ]
Commissioner Erwin asks if there has been some consideration for berms to help with sound mitigation
Mr. Pomeroy says there may be some in the Southwest corner but not elsewhere
Commissioner Erwin then asks about lighting which is described as a 4 pole system by Mr. Pomeroy
Commissioner Hauser moves 4.2
Commissioner Berry Graves asks about noise containment to which Mr. Pomeroy says there would only be noise at an event and berms would not help
Mr. Halbach speaks of acoustical sound imaging which can be done within the planning with walls and that they hope to have a stone memorial wall.
General Manager for Administration Don Siggelkow then goes through the list of 12 terms that have been submitted for the Reciprocal Use Agreement
They are as follows…
1. All construction costs associated with the “Athletic Facility” as defined by the 1983 agreement, will be the responsibility of DeLaSalle. [Does that mean the MPRB will be reimbursed for the cost of the original tennis courts?]
2. The Athletic Facility will be on MPRB and DeLaSalle property as outlined in the 1983 agreement.
3. No park land will be transferred or leased to DeLaSalle as part of the reciprocal agreement. [ Well there.. no need for that pesky super-majority 6th vote by an unwilling commissioner. How “it’s not a tax it’s a fee” or rather “it’s not a lease its an agreement” .]
4. All maintenance associated with the Athletic Facility will be the responsibility of DeLaSalle. [ Does the MPRB get reimbursed for the resurfacing of the aforementioned tennis courts? ]
5. DeLaSalle will be provided with priority use of the Athletic Facility during the school year. [ Would this be the MPS school year or does it differ from a private school which can set its own calendar???]
6. If the MPRB determines that the tennis courts will be relocated, DeLaSalle will be responsible for the construction of two (2) regulation tennis courts.
7. The MPRB will have access to the gymnasium at DeLaSalle High School for youth sports. [This needs to be very specific with a set number of specific days ]
8. DeLaSalle will indemnify the MPRB for all DeLaSalle activities held or sponsored at the Athletic Facility.
9. The term of the reciprocal agreement will be 30 years. [ Gee, a stadium that is only good for 30 years, where have I heard that before ]
10. No public funds, including property tax dollars or regional park funds, will be used in the construction or maintenance of the Athletic Facility. [ What about attorney’s fees when this fight drags out in court??? Will property tax dollars be used there, or enterprise dollars or sports use fees or any other MPRB funds at all for that matter??? and who is footing the bill for the staff time devoted to all this planning and negotiating????]
11. DeLaSalle shall provide 1,000 hours of community service activities annually to the MPRB including but not limited to; clinics for youth sports, student mentoring and public service. [ Too vague, difficult to measure and we’re already getting it from the U of M for the boathouse land ]
12. The DeLaSalle parking lot will be provided to the MPRB at no charge when there is no conflict with school events. [ What constitutes a conflict ??? ]
Commissioner Mason asks when the access to the gymnasium would be?
GM Siggelkow says that has not been negotiated but probably in the summer [ and the motion is to approve these terms????]
Commissioner Fine decides that public input will be next……
Public Comments begin which Commissioner Fine will call from the list based on whether they are pro or con in an alternate matter [with each given exactly a maximum of 2 minutes to speak].
At this point Brother Michael gives the speech he had already started. In paraphrasing he mentions that DeLaSalle sent a letter to the MPRB dated May 13th in which it seeks to implement a Reciprocal Use Agreement from the May 19,1983 Nicollet Island Agreement as DeLaSalle is a third party beneficiary of the agreement. He also states that many DeLaSalle graduates go on to become the citizens that go into public service to become members of boards and government. At six minutes he is asked by Commissioner Fine to “wrap it up” and he does by adding that tomorrow DeLaSalle is graduating its 103rd class.
The planning committee is then recessed so the the full board can come to order and move into OPEN TIME for which there is one speaker…
Joan Berthiaume speaks about the historic Theodore Wirth House from notes she received from Ted Wirth who is the cofounder of the Minneapolis Parks Legacy Society and grandson of the Minneapolis Park System’s longest serving superintendent and park designer, Theodore Wirth. Ms. Berthiaume states that Ted says the Minneapolis Parks Legacy Society has been working to open the historic Wirth home to the public for over five years. Ted wants to know
why the planning dept. is taking so long to make a decision about the future use of his grandfather’s historic home in Lyndale Farmstead Park when there is a precedent already set by the contracts with the organizations the run the Stevens House in Minnehaha Park and the Godfrey House in Chute Square?
[As citizens we owe a great debt to Theodore Wirth for the design and development of our wonderful park system. Wirth believed the responsibility of the Park Board was to PRESERVE and PROTECT all PARK PROPERTY and to be sure the parks would be all inclusive for all people today and for all generations yet to come.]
Commissioner Fine reconvenes the planning committee and public input continues….
Phyllis Kahn, State Representative for District 59B and Nicollet Island resident.
She gives the advice that the MPRB should make their decision based on what is BEST for the Minneapolis Park System.
Commissioner Fine interrupts to calm an outbreak of applause
Lou DeMars, Mr. DeMars gives a history of what happened during the early 1970’s that spurred the riverfront revival. With the 1976 approaching Bicentennial some available federal money was the motivator for getting the whole refurbishment started. He stresses that DeLaSalle stayed throughout the changes.
Janet Demming of the Island passes on her turn saying that she reaffirms Rep. Kahn’s statement.
John Chaffee of Nicollet Island is not pleased with the process. The comments by the outside law firm of Kennedy Graven [ Brian Rice, the MPRB’s attorney is a DeLaSalle alum ] appear to him to reach the conclusion that the MPRB has NO obligation and that would change upon entering into a reciprocal use agreement. So WHY do this?
Commissioner Fine interrupts again to calm the applause and Commissioner Young suggests using twinkling ( a hand waving gesture used by the Green Party to signify applause without interrupting the speaker) [ unfortunately that doesn’t come across very well on the cable broadcast but there was a lot of it going on from there forward].
Meredith Englund a DeLaSalle senior spoke next. She wanted to stress that the field that the girls soccer team used for practicing now at Van Cleve Park was at times dangerous due to the trash and sometime syringes left on the field. Though she personally would not benefit from the fields she knows that future DeLaSalle students would be especially thankful. She also wanted to thank the MPRB for providing her with the opportunity to play rec sports in the parks when she was younger and even had the chance to have Commissioner Fine as a coach.
Victor Grambsch of NIEBNA (the Nicollet Island/ East Bank Neighborhood Association ) again mentioned that the organization had passed a resolution against the planned facility and would be willing to work with both sides to reach a better agreement.
Susie Howard another DeLaSalle student and manager of the girls soccer team again stressed the bad conditions at Van Cleve and also that the game fields at the MPRB’s Neiman Complex were just too far away.
Commissioner Hauser at this time notes that some people from the DeLaSalle group seem to be leaving and will someone be staying to answer commissioner questions? [ Brother Michael had mentioned a previous conflict and the others were walking him out but would be back ]
Patrick Scully, a Nicollet Island resident states that this is a land use issue. He chastises the board with the comment that they are not the board of DeLaSalle High School and therefore it is not their charge to provide the school with an athletic facility. No where in the scope of the 1983 agreement is a stadium mentioned.
Alissa Beck, DeLaSalle student [so sorry my notes here are illegible]
Liz Wielinski, non-DeLaSalle affiliated, non-island resident:
I have taken some time to review the “proposed reciprocal agreement” and have found some flaws in the wording of who will pay for what. I would not be thrilled if somehow money for rec centers, wading pools and tree maintenance were diverted to this project. I am aware only too well of how the agreements end up once they are in the hands of staff and the MPRB attorneys. One has only to look at how The FORT, LLC lease allowed the MPRB to be saddled with $2.5 million in mechanics liens. I know that the residents of the island and the DeLaSalle representatives have the resources to take on this battle. My issue is that the MPRB will be taking much needed dollars and staff time away from core programs to fight this battle. In fact, just the consulting fee to the law firm of Kennedy Graven was a new expense above and beyond MPRB budgeting to get an opinion about the 1983 agreement. Only a month or so ago the Minneapolis Parks Legacy Society was told that the planning department was too swamped to even consider looking at a plan for the Historic Wirth Home, but now they have time to work with DeLaSalle’s stadium designers. Where are this board’s priorities? The public that funds this board through its tax dollars needs to be informed. I’d like to think that if enough “non-island residents” like myself made our fears known, it would give DeLaSalle and the families and alumni involved the message that THIS IS NOT AND NEVER WAS A FREE PROJECT as they like to emphasize and the TRUE COSTS need to be discussed.
[I feel strongly about this having fought to keep funding for core services during the last 2 budget cycles of the MPRB]
John Derus, Mr. Derus states that the Met council have made exceptions in the past with their open space land and that he is sure this will be another instance. He also proceeds to state that the people here are not just alumni but citizens as well. [ There was a letter from Peter Bell of the Met Council in the packet the commissioners received and it appeared to me that most exceptions were made when there was contiguous land available to trade for the property where the exception was made. ]
Christine Viken, Ms. Viken brought up some challenges to many of the DeLaSalle statements made.
She then suggests that the land across the footbridge at the north end … the BF Nelson site be considered for the facility.
Brother Basil, former principal of DeLaSalle 1977-1984. Brother Basil represented the school when the original 1983 agreement was made. He wants everyone to look to the future.
Duane Aurens, Mr. Aurens a NE resident and father of small children who lives close by claims that building the facility will encourage his family to keep from fleeing to the suburbs because of a raised quality of life. And as a Governor Pawlenty appointed member of the MN Amateur Sports commission he assures us that field space in Minneapolis is at a premium.
6:35 pm and the public input is complete.
We continue with the commissioner questions about the proposed reciprocal use agreement with DeLaSalle.
Commissioner Hauser asks if the MPRB will need to reimburse the Met Council Open Space dollars?
Director Reitkirk replies that it MAY not be necessary but a commitment to replace them may be necessary as well as possibly the tennis courts [ who pays ???]
Commissioner Hauser asks if the fencing will be necessary ( yes is the reply)
Commissioner Young suggests as she did at a previous meeting that mediation would be a better path than a reciprocal use agreement. This would be a tacit agreement to go forward on the project. She believes there are too many unanswered questions at this point to approve the motion. She also mentions that there is no proposal before the Met Council and no information on historical or environmental impacts. She believes that this is a slippery slope from public to private and that the MPRB needs to be cautious as there seems to be some concerns about members of the MPRB itself and conflicts of interest.
Commissioner Erwin states that the Land Use comments were very good. There is already a field so the MPRB has fulfilled its part except to have a written agreement. If DeLaSalle wants a larger field they could put the field in front and move parking to the rear. He does not feel he can make an informed decision at this time having received the 60 page information packet just moments before the meeting [ a tried and true Big 5 maneuver]
Commissioner Erwin offers a substitute motion…That the MPRB enter into a reciprocal use agreement for the current field and tennis courts only.
Commissioner Hauser ask for the substitute motion to be repeated.
Commissioner Mason wonders if it is necessary as the field and courts are already there.
Commissioner Hauser wonders if the field in place is regulation size.
Jay Pomeroy ( Landscape Architect and Engineer for DeLaSalle ) states that the adjacent field from the back wall of the building is just over the 160′ x 360′ regulation size but is basically useless.
Director Reitkirk jumps in to say that the sketches are still very preliminary and the final design would still need to be approved in September.
Commissioner Erwin insists that many more questions need to be answered before any steps are taken.
GM Siggelkow states the the 12 points are not site specific but it would get the ball rolling and that site issues would go through a public process.
Commissioner Mason states that DeLaSalle is not a third party in the agreement, that it involves only the MCDA and the MPRB and that more information is needed. Mr Norton of Kennedy Graven concluded that the MPRB needed to consider many items and that the board hasn’t.
Commissioner Dziedzic offers a substitute motion to the substitute motion [ which become the tongue twister of the evening] because we need to start somewhere and this is it. [ I believe the MPRB are not obligated to do anything actually ]
Substitute to the Substitute motion …. That the MPRB authorize staff to enter into negotiations for a reciprocal use agreement with DeLaSalle for an Athletic Facility that will then have a public hearing in July.
Commissioner Erwin wants a design available before there is a use agreement for it.
Commissioner Young claims it is nearly identical to the original motion and that July is too soon and that the Met Council and the Historical Society still haven’t ben contacted.
Commissioner Dziedzic says it’s 6 weeks.
Commissioner Hauser claims the original motion is about a general agreement about what is important to the children and people of the city and about land use and that site specifics aren’t necessary just other details [ and your point here is…….]
Commissioner Young states it is about land use and what ever happened to separation of church and state.
A vote is called on the substitution to the substitution Hauser, Dziedzic, Fine aye, Young and Erwin nay.
There is a scuffle amongst the board and some knowledgeable folks in the audience over Robert’s Rules and voting on the other motions that ends in the negotiated agreement being on the July 20th agenda for a public hearing.
Commissioner Mason asks if this is now moved to the full board for a vote. (no)
Will the Agreement when voted on (in July) need 6 votes ( no, it isn’t a land sale or long term lease ) [ 30 year tie up of land sounds like a long term lease to me]
Glad that outside counsel was used and how much did it cost and will the board be revealing any possible conflicts of interest?
Commissioner Dziedzic: Worked one year at DeLaSalle.
President Olson: Proud parent of a 2004 DeLaSalle grad.
Commissioner Berry Graves: Proud grandparent of a 2004 DeLaSalle grad.
Commissioner Hauser: Proud parent of multiple DeLaSalle grads.
Commissioner Fine: Relative who is an Island resident.
Commissioners Young and Kummer: no conflict.
Planning Committee Adjourned 7:10 pm
[ Let the lawsuits begin 😦 ]
7:15 pm Admin and Finance Committee
7.1 That the Board Approve the Agreement between the MPRB and the Suburban HRPD related to the Carl Kroening Interpretive Center and North Mississippi Regional Park
This agreement realigns who does what in the park shared with Hennepin County. The County will be providing the staffing and programs at the center and the MPRB will be doing all the maintenance of the parkland and buildings.
passes
7.2 The board adopts a resolution ordering East Nokomis Parkway improvements ( per GM Schmidt this is standard operating procedure)
Study Report on the US Pond Hockey Championships
GM Siggelkow would like the board to authorize staff to hold discussions with the US Pond Hockey Association to hold their tournament on January 20-22, 2006 on Lake Calhoun (okay is given)
Having a location in progress will allow the Pond Hockey group to write letters to sponsors to raise funds. St. Paul has had some small tournaments in the past and there is a meeting about this issue at the ECCO meeting Thurs.
Commissioner Young confirms it will not conflict with the Loppet
Commissioner Berry Graves mentions that the MPRB can not guarantee the weather.
Admin and Finance is adjourned.
Regular Meeting is reconvened…
Reports of Officers
Superintendent Gurban gives a glowing report on how the new floating docks at Nokomis and Calhoun will save time and money as they went in like a breeze in an hour and a half.
Commissioner Dziedzic asks if there are ports-potties near all the docks.
Superintendent Gurban verifies that they are near the floating docks but is not sure for all docks in the system.
Commissioner Kummer mentions there was a nice photo of the new dock in the paper.
Superintendent Gurban then hands out “hot off the presses” the 2004 Superintendents report. They are available to the public on Monday a your local Park Center or Library.
Commissioner Erwin is glad to hear that the cost went from $22 a copy to $1.50 for printing.
Commissioner Mason asks if the sailing center at the south end of Lake Calhoun will be on the next meeting in June’s agenda and the superintendent says there have been some delays and it will come up at a later date.
Commissioner Dziedzic ask how many of the Commissioner Reports are available (2000) and if there are enough (probably) He then points out that there is a budget available on the last page for the public to see. [ 18 lines folks not exactly the specifics some are looking for, it is even called the condensed budget ]
GM Siggelkow reports that a settlement has been reached with the seasonal workers and hopes to have them soon with the 49ers and the Teamsters.
GM Schmidt reports that the 2004 annual resources report is done ( 1″ thick booklet ) and is available online [ YEAH ] and that since 1991 water quality has been improving and is considered to be at “pre-European Settlement” levels
Commissioner Young asks if the attachments commissioners get with their agendas are available on-line yet. (no)
2.1 and 2.2 are passed ( new HVAC at Wirth Chalet and the seasonal worker’s contract)
7.1 ( a catwalk at Mill Ruins Park for which Hennepin County is paying) passed
Unfinished Business
Youth Athletic Fees ( for non rec center sports leagues )
Games $16/ hour Practices $8/ hour
It has been suggested by the Superintendent that teams with a hardship be allowed to work off the fees
Commissioner Berry Grave states that the rules for this must be straight forward and even for all.
There ensues some discussion when Commissioner Dziedzic mentions that there are free Lupient Park passes for youth who do service work for seniors and such in Northeast and Commissioner Berry Graves wonders if this is also available at North Commons? GM Siggelkow states it is a Lupient Family funded program.
New Business
Campaigning in the Parks
Commissioner Young brings this up now to have a standard set of rules for the upcoming political season.
GM Siggelkow when checking into this found that it had come up and the 3 district managers had set a policy
Lakes District Manager Paul Hokeness give the presentation…
1) Follow building guidelines and if questions check with district supervisors
2) Political Parties may use rooms other than the gyms free of charge and may pass lit within the room but no fundraising (fee if room is used outside of regular center hours or for gym)
3) staff is discouraged from voicing opinions on park property or on MPRB time
4) give facts/ do not offer opinions
5) use common sense and if in doubt ask a supervisor
6) at festivals and celebrations the candidates may purchase a booth like all other participants but may not freely wander the crowd handing out materials
Petitions and Communications
Commissioner Dziedzic praises the golf courses and speaks about the upcoming coaches dinner. Jim Lupient waterpark FREE day is July 12th
Commissioner Mason mentions the community meeting about Lake of the Isles on June 28th and is getting calls from the cable viewers that the meetings need a better format as they are difficult to follow. She will be attending the Longfellow meeting on June 9th about the Longfellow House and mentions receiving a letter from Vita Ditter of the Bryn Mawr neighborhood about a canoe rack at Brownie Lake they would like to fund with their NRP dollars.
Commissioner Fine received letters about the Wirth House and DeLaSalle
Commissioner Erwin says the the Long Term Planning group has met and will have meetings with the reorganization team about how the planning will fit and will also have a series of questions for commissioners soon.
Commissioner Mason asks when the next report is due from the reorganization consultants (1st meeting in July)
Commissioner Young was at the Harrison Neighborhood Annual Meeting and there was a lot of discussion regarding the Bassetts Creek master Plan and Froen Mill. This weekend is the Grand Opening of Heritage Park.
Commissioner Kummer sat through the second longest ever planning commission meeting and sent reports to staff about some trailer and portapottie disturbances in the Nokomis area
Commissioner Berry Graves reported getting many cards about saving the open space at the area DeLaSalle would like their Athletic facility
and lots of calls regarding youth employment for the summer which she mentions that there is none of at this point as it is up to the Legislature.
ADJOURNED 8:00pm
The controversy over DeLaSalle’s efforts to claim MPRB parkland has been brewing for several months. It is an issue with implications far greater than just Nicollet Island.
It is another example of how certain Minneapolis Park Board commissioners conduct Park Board business — making major Park Board decisions too quickly, without sufficient information, without sufficient deliberation, without pubic knowledge and without relevant public input. It is a defective way to run a park system that encompasses 6,400 acres of land and is the largest landowner in Minneapolis.
Important matters like the DeLaSalle issue need thoughtful and thorough consideration by the Park Board, the affected neighborhood and the public before being placed on a Park Board agenda for approval. Yet, prior to any thoughtful and thorough consideration, approval for the DeLaSalle agreement was put on the Park Board’s June 1 Planning Committee meeting’s agenda.
Fortunately, minority Commissioners Annie Young and John Erwin pointed out that is would be premature and inappropriate to vote on the DeLaSalle agreement without first reviewing additional information. They were successful in postponing the issue.
Regularly scheduled meeting. Official agenda documents will be at this link when they become available.
Official agenda documents in Adobe Acrobat PDF format are available at this link.
Some agenda highlights are:
III. ACTION ITEMS
4.2. That the Board approve the terms for the implementation of a recipricol use agreement with DeLaSalle High School.
III. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
Superintendent Gurban – Superintendent’s Annual Report
General Manager Siggelkow – Contract Negotiations
General Manager Schmidt – 2004 Water Quality Report
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Youth Athletic Fees • Commissioner Dziedzic
VII. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Campaigning in the Parks • Commissioner Young
Minneapolis Park Watch 