Skyway News: Delasalle Field Compromise: Citizens First, Deal Later

« Nicollet Island residents clamoring for a seat at the table to discuss an athletic field expansion are getting their chairs.

On a surprise 9-0 vote Aug. 17, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board created a 21-member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to discuss DeLaSalle High School's request to build a joint-use athletic field on land spanning school and park property.

The citizens group will begin meeting as soon as possible in September. It will meet at least three times over the next six weeks, according to the Board action.

Board Vice President John Erwin brokered the last-minute deal, which had the blessing of DeLaSalle President Brother Michael Collins and Barry Clegg, an island resident and a point person for project opponents.

The Park Board's Planning Committee had approved a joint-use agreement. It required DeLaSalle to bear facility construction and maintenance costs. The deal set minimum hours for Park Board use of the fields and the school's gym.

The Park Board had scheduled a public hearing and vote Aug. 17. The approximately 90 audience seats were filled and another 50 people stood lining the walls in what looked like a long evening of testimony.

Then Erwin offered the compromise. Collins and Clegg spoke briefly, supported the deal, and asked people who had attended to save their speeches for another day.

Collins said after the meeting that his bottom line for agreeing to the compromise was the timing. He was open to collaboration, consensus and input, but "I am not open to this going on forever."

All nine members of the Park Board are up for reelection Nov. 8. Collins said he wants a decision before the turnover. Going into 2006 would be "unfair," he said.

"This group knows the issues, pro and con," Collins said. "They are best prepared to make an advised decision."

The current timeline has the citizen's committee reporting to the Park Board in mid- to late October. Erwin agreed that the current board should make the decision.

Who's on the committee?

DeLaSalle has a football field next to its school, but it lacks bleacher space. The proposal would close half of Grove Street and expand the field onto Park Board land, add soccer fields and seating. The land is currently used for open space and tennis courts.

The CAC is charged with reviewing and commenting on the athletic field's schematic design alternatives. It will take input from interested parties and ultimately recommend a preferred design option. Meetings are open to the public.

The Park Board always intended to create the CAC; the question was timing. The Park Board initially planned to first approve the shared-use agreement with DeLaSalle, and then create the citizens committee to discuss design options.

To opponents, that put the cart before the horse. They wanted input before the Park Board committed to the deal.

Arlene Fried, one of the few speakers Aug. 17, criticized the Park Board for dragging its feet on forming the CAC because that delay created unnecessary hostility, she said.

The 21-member committee is appointed as follows:

President Jon Olson, a field supporter, will appoint the chair. Each of the remaining eight Commissioners gets one appointment each.

Mayor R.T. Rybak and City Council President Paul Ostrow (1st Ward) each get an appointment, as do Councilmember Natalie Johnson Lee (5th Ward) and Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin, whose districts include Nicollet Island.

Island residents will recommend two representatives.

Park Board staff will identify six other participants, one each from the St. Anthony West and St. Anthony East neighborhood organizations, one each from the Nicollet Island Project Advisory Committee and businesses, and two from special interest groups (one representing football, the other soccer).

Commissioner Annie Young asked whether other special interest groups should be included, such as an environmentalist or groups concerned about church/state issues. The idea died; the Board was not interested in changing the compromise.

DeLaSalle does not have dedicated representatives. Olson said that was standard procedure. Since they were proposing the project, they would have people making presentations. Further, elected officials would use their appointments to include people sympathetic to the project.

The compromise started coming together on Monday, said Erwin and Park Board attorney Brian Rice. Olson called Rice and had him draft a potential compromise, Rice said. They gave the language to Erwin, who did shuttle diplomacy to get language that both sides could accept.

Big issues remain

The key question: Is the Board's compromise action a miracle breakthrough or a vote that simply delays the pain of a protracted legal battle?

Commissioner Marie Hauser said after the vote she hoped the compromise would jumpstart an agreement. She stood firm that the Park Board had to follow a 1983 agreement she said commits it to the DeLaSalle joint venture.

That point has been hotly contested. The Park Board hired outside counsel Michael Norton to review the 1983 agreement, and Norton said the Park Board was obligated to help with the field. He also referenced unresolved legal issues.

The newly formed group Friends of the Riverfront, which includes island residents, sought its own legal opinion from Briggs and Morgan.

In an Aug. 9 letter to the Friends, attorney Jack Perry wrote the firm had identified at least six reasons why the Park Board is not obligated by the 1983 agreement.

The Friends group has also requested an Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the project. »

by Scott Russell

Original article at Skyway News Online.

Comments

If the DeLaSalle CAC is anything like other park committees for controversial subjects, it will be worthless. For example, here are comments to the Park Board from Sixth Park District citizens regarding off leash dog park location, collected in April, 2002.

  • Why doesn't the citizens advisory board input (that this was #18 on the list) count?
  • Process: Not inclusive. Limited to a few. Seems as if Park Board is not interested in hearing from citizens/residents. Process of notification limited to just a few. Only way to respond is in written format. Revenue driven for Park Board.
  • Why is the staff of the Park Board ignoring the hard work of the citizen volunteers who worked for many months on the Sixth District Site Study Committee and ranked this site next to last out of 19 sites? Is this arrogance or simply incompetence?
  • Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has requested that no dog parks be located near water. Why is the Park Board choosing to overlook this recommendation?
  • Maintenance is extremely poor at existing dog parks, why does the Park Board think it can properly maintain this site?
  • MPRB has relatively poor maintenance reputation with neighborhood. Will this additional facility receive additional attention?
  • Walt Dziedzic's neighborhood didn't go through this insanity to get a dog park - why can't Bob Fine offer us some leadership? We have plenty of sports fields in our neighborhood - it's time for a dog park.
  • Why is the Park Board ignoring the committee's recommendations?
  • Why is this site being considered by the Park Board when it ranked 18 or 19 by the off-leash study committee?
  • You spent over $13,000 on a committee to research this, and then you pay no attention to its findings. What a WASTE.

The public that showed up to the St. Anthony CAC the first time ( non appointed ) apparently came to the wrong conclusion as we are now having a second CAC ( appointed ) to redo the whole thing. What happens if the majority of the appointees just happen to agree with the first conclusion? Then what?

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.