We continue with the commissioner questions about the proposed
reciprocal use agreement with DeLaSalle... [all comments in brackets
are those of the typist]
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 you 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 Rule's 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 :-( ]
Liz Wielinski
Columbia Park
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
