Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/07/01 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Joint I/I St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JULY 1, 2013 1. Call to Order Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tern Susan Sanger, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs. School Board Members present: Chair Bruce Richardson, Vice Chair Nancy Gores, Ken Momson, Larry Shapiro, Julie Sweitzer, Joe Tatalovich, and Jim Yarosh. City Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Organizational Development Coordinator(Ms. Gothberg), and Recording Secretary(Ms. Hughes). 2. Introductions Mayor Pro Tem Sanger introduced Ms. Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator. The Councilmembers and School Board members then introduced themselves. 3. Remarks from the Mayor Pro Tem and School Board Chair School Board Chair Richardson stated the School Board was pleased to meet with the City Council this evening. He indicated the new School Superintendent, Rob Metz, was unable to attend this evening due to a prior commitment. 4. SWLRT/Freight Rail: Discuss overall issues, comments, and formulate a position statement Mr. Locke presented the draft list of key issues on freight rail alternatives and draft letter to Met Council SPO. He distributed several maps depicting existing and future freight rail car volumes, existing and future freight rail at-grade crossings, changes in track height for Brunswick West and Brunswick Central, and freight rail track construction for Brunswick West and Brunswick Central. He also distributed a flyer regarding two public community meetings being sponsored by the SPO on July 17 and 18. He stated the SPO would be presenting the most viable freight rail routes to the Citizens Advisory Committee and Business Advisory Committee and then the Corridor Management Committee with the final decision coming from Met Council the end of August. He indicated the letter and comments incorporate all of the comments from previous meetings including the question raised by Council regarding the number of parcels that need to be acquired along the MN&S route in order to create a 100' wide comdor. He stated the City has included a graphic that was used in the City's DEIS comments that illustrates these parcels and the comments point out that it includes properties north of Minnetonka Boulevard up to the 27`h Street right-of-way. He advised the City anticipates that cost estimates will be available toward the end of July adding that our understanding is that the cost estimates will become public information once this information reaches the technical project advisory committee. Joint City Council/ School Board Meeting -2- July 1, 2013 Councilmember Mavity asked City staff to request that Met Council officially provide the City with this information the moment it becomes public and to also request that Met Council present this information to Council at a study session or City Council meeting. Mr. Locke agreed to make this request to the SPO. School Board Member Yarosh stated at their last School Board meeting, the SPO representative agreed that before determining the freight rail route the SPO needs a plan for the high school football field. He asked if City staff believes that more information will be made available before the recommendation is made to Met Council. Mr. Locke stated the City's goal is to submit its comments before the SPO has finished its recommendation regarding freight rail in the hope that the City's concerns would influence the SPO's recommendation. Mr. Harmening stated the City's draft letter indicates the City does not support the reroute options currently on the table, and the City feels there is a viable option that exists in the Kenilworth corridor with colocation. School Board Chair Richardson stated the School Board agrees with the City's position and feels the City has done an excellent job in preparing its letter and comments. He presented a letter listing several areas that the School Board would like to address and stated the School District's #1 concern is the safety of students, parents, and staff. He indicated the proposed reroute comes through their campus and the tenfold increase in train traffic is not acceptable. He stated the loss of the football field represents a significant impact and the proposed reroute goes right by one of the elementary schools and the 30' rise in elevation is unacceptable. He indicated the impact to the ECFE Center and PSI is also significant and noted that Peter Hobart School would be cut off from its neighborhood. He stated that safety, noise, vibration, and environmental impacts are issues requiring mitigation, and the School Board has not heard anything about what would be mitigated and who would be responsible for this mitigation. He advised there are operational aspects of running the schools, especially buses, and the School Board is concerned about impacts during and after construction. He reiterated the School Board does not support any of the options as presented to relocate freight rail through the City. School Board Member Sweitzer stated she remains concerned about all the money being spent on the project and that there will not be enough money left for mitigation. She stated the elevated route is of significant concern to her and indicated she has not heard enough about the impact of the elevated route. She indicated her biggest concern is safety and having an elevated train so close to the school as well as concerns about the football field. Councilmember Hallfin stated the public information meetings on July 17-18 include 45 minutes for Q&A and he has heard from residents that that is not enough time. He asked City staff to find out if the SPO will answer all questions at the public information meetings. He stated the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 10-070 that opposes the reroute if there are other viable alternatives and if no other viable options exist, then there must be sufficient mitigation and the City Council has not wavered from that resolution. School Board Member Shapiro stated the School Board feels very strongly that the proposed reroute is not good for the School Distnct or for the City as a whole. He stated the reroute cuts Joint City Council/ School Board Meeting -3- July 1, 2013 through the middle of the City and he has significant concerns about safety and the elevated track and he has not seen any mitigation. He was also concerned about safety if a train derails on the elevated track. Councilmember Ross stated the City Council has been clear that it would be open to looking at all options but if a viable option other than the MN&S route exists then the City Council opposes the reroute, adding the City's independent study as well as the other studies that have been done indicate there are other viable options. She stated she would not support moving the freight trains and rerouting them through neighborhoods. School Board Member Tatalovich stated his agreement with the draft letter and comments and commended the City Council and staff for preparing a thorough document that addresses the School Board's concerns. Councilmember Spano referenced the maps depicting freight rail track construction and stated these maps show that over half of the new alignment includes track and right-of-way where there previously was no track and it was important to recognize there are residents who are unfamiliar with how this is going to work. He stated this issue was pointed out during meetings with members of the City's federal delegation and the City has sent letters to the City's congressional delegation, as well as U.S. Rep. Tim Walz and U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan, who are members of the House of Representatives Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, to make them aware of the City's concerns. He stated the SWLRT project had a budget established when the freight rail relocation was precluded from the discussion and when the FTA ordered that freight rail relocation be made a part of the project, the budget was never changed and expressed significant concern that there would not be enough money in the budget for mitigation. School Board Member Yarosh suggested that the City's letter and comments be more aggressive in advocating the viability of colocation. He felt the football field issue was a nonstarter and expressed concerns about parking, noise, and the elevated track, adding that noise studies have not been done regarding the elevated track. Councilmember Mavity thanked City staff for their efforts in preparing the draft letter and comments. She expressed concern that the City does not yet have cost estimates and stated she understood that Met Council was on a fast track to get the project ready and to get federal funding, but wanted to make sure the City Council and the School Board receives the information it needs including cost estimates, especially since it appears there will not be enough money available and the City needs to understand exactly what that means. She agreed that the football field represents a significant issue that needs to be addressed. School Board Member Morrison agreed with the concerns raised by the other members of the School Board and stated the first priority is the students. He was concerned about running a train so close to the schools and the elevated track was also a concern. He stated that having an elevated train going through the middle of the City is a concern for the community as a whole. Councilmember Santa stated the City's comments reference the softening of side-slopes and indicated she had a hard time envisioning how large the base of a berm would be where the train is running on tracks elevated by an earthen berm. She questioned how much right-of-way would be buffer area as opposed to simply room to accommodate berm for elevating the tracks. She expressed concern about the effects on the community in either a colocation or relocation Joint City Council/ School Board Meeting -4- July 1, 2013 scenario and the impacts on the school system, e.g., getting buses to and from the schools on time and getting kids to the classroom on time with the least amount of disruption. She stated that under either option there will be impacts rippling through the system, including impacts on streets, sidewalks, and the way people get around the community. She wanted to make sure that the City remains mindful of the potential impacts on the systems that pull the community together both from a City perspective and a School District perspective. School Board Vice Chair Gores pointed out the football field and stadium is used for other activities, e.g., lacrosse and graduation ceremonies, and is the soul of the School District. It has a much larger implication than just impacts on football. She was concerned about the disruption to classes if the football field was relocated as well as the construction aspect. She indicated the School District has staggered school start times so the same buses can run several routes to keep costs down and free up money for classrooms. She stated the City's letter talks about circulation impacts and the School Board has concerns in either a colocation or relocation scenario about how traffic will be disrupted during construction and the potential of having kids getting stuck at bus stops and waiting in the cold dark weather for buses and the potential for massive disruption. She stated the School Board was hopeful the City could help manage this issue and find ways to mitigate this potential disruption. Mayor Pro Tern Sanger felt that both reroute options were disruptive, inappropriate, unnecessary, and expensive and felt there were better alternatives available. She suggested that the City's letter be modified to indicate the City needs all this information before it can consider municipal consent rather than before it can approve municipal consent. She also felt the City's letter should be stronger in its statement that the City cannot consider these options fairly until it receives additional information to make a realistic choice. She felt the City's letter needed to point out that the City was not able to consider freight rail in its previous decision and the City cannot address the routing issue without full information about colocation and reroute options and implications to the community to address concerns being raised, adding that whichever route is chosen, it would be difficult to approve without cost estimates. Councilmember Hallfin indicated there was some earlier discussion another a possible option for freight rail in the future heading up north and further west of the Twin Cities and felt it was important to know there are other options that could happen in the future with freight rail. Councilmember Spano stated the idea of routing trains toward Glencoe was raised as a means to effectively remove freight from the community. School Board Member Yarosh felt the City should be more assertive in saying this is an option that should remain open and the City should articulate that argument more aggressively in its letter and comments with the caveat that the City is making this argument without cost estimates. Councilmember Ross disagreed that trains could be removed entirely from St. Louis Park and stated the trains would be simply shifted to the BNSF tracks from the Bass Lake Spur, adding she was concerned about the significant impact to Ward 4 of putting 1,580 more rail cars per week on the BNSF track. Councilmember Santa stated the City of Glencoe was not in favor of moving the switching wye to Glencoe noting this is where TC&W is headquartered. She agreed there would always be trains in St. Louis Park and the issue remains whether there is sufficient mitigation. She agreed with School Board Member Yarosh's suggestion to push the colocation option but was frustrated that the City did not have enough fact-based arguments in favor of colocation. Joint City Council/ School Board Meeting -5- July 1, 2013 School Board Chair Richardson expressed appreciation to everyone who has worked on this and requested that the City Council and School Board recognize the efforts of former School Board Member Rolf Peterson who remains active with the School Board and City on SWLRT. School Board Vice Chair Gores suggested that the School Board send a letter to the SPO more tailored to the School District issues. 5. Discussion of topics for future joint meetings Councilmember Mavity suggested that a joint meeting be scheduled in approximately one month to consider the cost estimates and to schedule another meeting after the SPO makes its recommendations to discuss next steps and strategy. She also suggested that a future joint meeting include discussion about housing and school patterns. School Board Member Yarosh suggested that a future joint meeting include discussion about the School District referenda. School Board Member Morrison suggested that a future joint meeting include discussion about the availability of activity spaces in the City. It was the consensus of the City Council and School Board to schedule a joint meeting on Monday, July 29, 2013, and to request that a representative from the SPO attend this meeting, with the understanding that this meeting may be rescheduled if information is not yet available from the SPO. It was also the consensus of the City Council and School Board to schedule a joint meeting on Monday, August 5, 2013, as the backup date to July 29, 2013. It was also the consensus of the City Council and School Board to discuss SWLRT and the School District referenda at its next joint meeting and to discuss housing/school patterns at a meeting in the fall. 6. Other Councilmember Mavity requested clarification regarding the supplemental DEIS process and whether public input will be part of that process. Mr. Locke advised it was his understanding that during a Federal Supplemental DEIS there is not opportunity for public input on the scope of the Supplemental DEIS, but there is a 45-day comment period on the completed supplemental DEIS. He added he felt that the recommendation regarding freight rail routing and the municipal consent plans would be done before the supplemental DEIS is completed. Mayor Pro Tern Sanger indicated that in the last several weeks she has heard Met Council staff state publicly that the freight rail reroute is not part of the municipal consent process and requested that staff follow up on what that means. Mr. Locke agreed to ask the SPO to provide clarification regarding the supplemental DEIS. 7. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Nancy Stroth, City Clerk usan Sanger Mayor Pro Tern