District Councils Collaborative of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
Governing Council Meeting
Central Corridor Resource Center • 1080 University Ave W, St. Paul
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Chair: Anne White
Staff Present: Carol Swenson, Executive Director
Recorder: Bob Spaulding
Roll call:
Member Organizations
District Council 6 (North End, South Como)
District Council 7 (Frogtown)
District Council 8 (Summit-University)
District Council 10 (Midway-Como)
District Council 11 (Hamline-Midway)
District Council 12 (St. Anthony Park)
District Council 13 (Union Park)
District Council 14 (Macalester-Groveland)
District Council 16 (Summit Hill Association)
District Council 17 (Capitol River)
PPERRIA (Prospect Park-East River Road Improvement Assoc.)
SECIA (Southeast Como Improvement Association)
Marcy-Holmes
Cedar Riverside-West Bank Coalition
University of Minnesota Area Community
District Council 6 (North End, South Como)
District Council 7 (Frogtown)
District Council 8 (Summit-University)
District Council 8 (Summit-University)
District Council 10 (Midway-Como)
District Council 11 (Hamline-Midway)
District Council 12 (St. Anthony Park)
District Council 13 (Union Park)
District Council 16 (Summit-Hill)
District Council 17 (Capitol River)
PPERRIA
Representatives
Present
and
Voting
Patricia Carlson
Karen Inman
Steve Wilson
Ken Kunkle
Steve Samuelson
Mark Nelson
Anne White
Joel Clemmer
Andrew Dull
Ellen McPartlan
Phil Anderson
Lynn Anderson
Doug Carlson
Tim Marass
Ron Lischeid
Excused
Present
Absent
Absent
Excused
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Excused
Present
Alternates
Clint Gerner
Anthony
Fernandez
Tim Jorissen
Woody Erickson
Tony Hainault
Mike Dean
Renée Lepreau
Sheila Sahu
Tim Parmas
Andrew Schlack
Susan LarsonFleming
SECIA (Southeast Como Improvement Association)
June 10, 2009 – Governing Council
1
Cedar Riverside (West Bank Community Coalition)
Marcy-Holmes
University District
Andrew Lee
PRELIMINARY BUSINESS
1. Welcome to new members and visitors. Anne announced Bob would be stepping down
as Secretary and the Governing Council welcomed Ellen McPartlin from the
CapitolRiver Council. Ellen McPartlan introduced herself as the new CapitolRiver
Council Representative; she has been pretty involved in the Operation and Maintenance
Facility issue in Lowertown.
2. Roll Call of Voting Members. Carol called the roll of voting members.
3. Opportunity for visitors to speak. No visitors were present to speak.
4. Approve agenda.
MINUTES & FINANCIAL STATEMENT
5. Approve minutes of May meeting. Karen Inman moved approval. Motion seconded
and adopted.
6. Review May financial statement. Carol noted that there was really nothing in usual.
The $423 in April was for some of the toner to do some major copying and replacement
of the drum. In May, there have been pretty normal expenditures of supplies. Anne
noted that the almost $15,000 is what we have remaining in the University UNITED
bank account for the DCC, which means we probably have a couple of thousand of
dollars left over for July 31st. The Executive Committee talked about that, and there’s a
little bit of software we need to invest in, and we would use the balance of that to hire a
grantwriter to update our Common Grant Application for the next round of
applications..
Mark Nelson asked whether we need to spend down the University UNITED account,
or whether we could transfer it to the new DCC entity. Anything we leave in the
UNITED account is money we would forfeit; we also have a July 31st deadline to spend
money from the Saint Paul Foundation, when our association with UNITED will cease.
7. Announcement of elections for Secretary. Since Bob is stepping down from the Board,
we need a new Secretary. The bylaws say that we need to elect a new Secretary. What
Anne is proposing to do is hold that election at the July Governing Council meeting.
She would propose, if it is all right with everyone, that we not set up a whole
nominating committee, but that Anne would just open up the process to nominations,
including self-nominations.
DISCUSSION & ACTION
June 10, 2009 – Governing Council
2
8. Update on Central Corridor Management Committee Meeting. A primary focus of the
meeting was to see if the change in bus service and LRT would have an impact under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Just as a bit of clarification, the Title VI study is not the
sole basis of the Title VI complaint.
The FTA requires any transit agency to evaluate the impacts, positive or negative, on
any low-income or minority populations. John Levin who was presenting this noted
that public concern over this analysis is being handled differently.
They looked at the total number of daily transit trips in the study, which is a little
misleading: they looked at how many times a transit vehicle is stopping per day, versus
how many in the future. They take patterns of stoppage and overlay that onto
demographic information, and then see if there are any matching of decrease in service
to protected communities. In essence, you have the LRT service replacing the bus
service as access to transit. The change is that you get an increase in service, with an
exception of three census tracts along Western Avenue.
Ellen McPartlin asked whether they were measuring access to other locations, or just
where any transit line picks you up. Anne said they were just measuring where pickups were occurring.
Joel said the Met Council claimed the half-mile measurement before, and there has been
no problem with it. By comparison, Joel thought about the studies this group has done
to compare levels of service to other peer regions, which showed that station spacing
one mile apart is not very common. John Levine of the Met Council said he was okay
using the half-mile for trains since they offered more speed. Joel said he just wasn’t
buying the study that they were doing.
Mark asked if weather was given any consideration: a half-mile in Seattle is very
different than it is in the Twin Cities. The answer is no. Carol said that people using the
16 have very different purposes than the trips along Hiawatha. Route #16 Trips in the
Central Corridor are shorter, to visit neighbors, and go to school. You have a lot of trips
during the day, yet that is when the trips are cut the most during the proposal.
One of the things that came out during the questioning today was the Census Block
Group Analysis. Regionally, 6.79% of people in block groups are at the poverty level. If
you have a block group greater than that, then you have a concentration of poverty.
They asked which blocks are at or greater than 6.79%. However, you have no distinction
between block groups that are at 50% levels of poverty, or 10%. That’s something Peter
McLaughlin was honing in on: the implication being there might be different impacts to
households if you have more households with less income. The net result is the whole
corridor is low-income, and so there is no differential in impact.
County Commissioner Toni Carter did introduce a resolution that was discussed by the
Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority that would reaffirm the importance of building
out all three stations, and the importance of building one if money became available.
She also asked that the Central Corridor Management Team add the Western station to
the project prior to the availability of contingency funds. She also said she would like to
have an assessment done about whether a station at Western would provide the
necessary access to transit needed. That motion was supported by Rafael Ortega, the
other St. Paul Commissioner. Peter Bell did not want the conversation to continue, and
June 10, 2009 – Governing Council
3
he said there was already a commitment to build that station, and there was no need for
a resolution. Joel said that his perception is that Peter Bell didn’t want it, and the motion
wasn’t prepared well enough to take hold. Peter Bell wanted to table it until the next
meeting, and that’s what happened.
Joel said he also wanted to see some concrete data to see if there was in fact proof that
building the Western Avenue station would address the disparities identified. But it
seemed that, in fact, it would.
The primary concern at this point is to issue a Notice to Proceed by August 31st with
utility relocation in downtown St. Paul along 4th Street, which needs to start soon. To
get there, the tentative FEIS gets published on June 26th. By August 19th, the FTA
would issue a record of decision. By August 20th, the FTA would approve a Letter of
No Prejudice for advance utility relocation.
Doug Carlson noted that we are two months beyond where we said we had to be to get
the line built, and now these dates keep proving more flexible than they were sold to us.
Carol said that what really impacts this project at this point is being able to do the utility
work this fall, and if they can’t do that, then the 2014 project opening may be
jeopardized. Doug said that they were saying what would happen is the project would
be jeopardized if they didn’t meet deadlines, not just that we would fall further behind.
9. Updated on FEIS and Rondo Committee’s Complaint. The Met Council asked the
Rondo group to withdraw the complaint to meet with people other than lawyers. They
did meet with the Met Council and Jim McDonough with the Regional Rail Authority
was also at that meeting. The revised letter is a paragraph that acknowledges that the
meeting took place, and what the results of the meeting were. The complaint has gone
in, and there have been a number of articles in the papers regarding that complaint. The
FTA has given the Met Council 30 days to respond to the complaint. Peter Bell did
acknowledge that had taken place at the beginning of the Management Committee
meeting today.
Because at our last meeting we had talked about being able to take possible action on the
complaint today, we found out that most organizations have not been able to take it up.
Marcy-Holmes has and they support the complaint, and SECIA has as well. Karen
Inman said that at the Thomas-Dale district council, most of the people supported the
complaint in an informal poll, and that the three stations were the most concerning to
the most people. Joel asked if any of the neighborhood associations or community
councils have said that they will not support or sign the letter of complaint, or is it just in
limbo. Anne said that of those that have considered it, they have supported many of the
issues in the complaint, but they weren’t clear what remedies were being sought, and
how those remedies might be put in place, and so they were uncomfortable signing on
to it. In those cases, the sense we get is that they will put it to a vote when they feel they
have the full information. So when the Executive Committee took a vote last week, they
felt that the issue should be tabled and brought up at the July meeting. Doug Carlson
asked whether that would be too late – he noted the deadline for response is the end of
June, and a July response will be too late. The problem is that most of the neighborhood
organizations wanted to have the actual complaint.
Joel said that he wanted to be clear what the district council could do. Like a number of
the district councils, the complaint seemed to ramble on, and the council wasn’t sure
June 10, 2009 – Governing Council
4
what to do with that. Joel said that if two-thirds of the community councils respond to
the complaint with some form of common response that becomes the effective position
of the District Councils Collaborative. Joel said that at the July 8th meeting, it would be
assessing, possibly taking a vote, which would need a two-thirds majority to express an
opinion on the complaint. If it looks like we’re all over the map.
Ron noted that on page 4, the only thing in the whole complaint that people are asking
for is captured in this sentence: “Accordingly, an audit review of the Recipients Title VI
‘program’ and environmental justice analysis is necessary.” Phil said that he thought he
could ask his neighborhood to support the last line in particular. It was noted the
complaint did not specifically make a call for additional stations. Anne said that there
was a path. If the group would agree, Anne would urge those groups that wish bring it
back to their district council or neighborhood association, and then at the July meeting,
we will be in a position to vote on the issue. The Met Council at that point will have
given a response – there will be an answer – and the FTA will then be in a position to do
something about it.
10. DCC Comments on FEIS. Carol went over a listing of DCC’s historical comments on
the DCC DEIS/EIS. In terms of stations, the Western, Victoria and Hamline
infrastructure has been proposed. The Cleveland and Vandalia station isn’t moving
forward because lack of City or County interest. The Cedar/Riverside station has been
moved to the satisfaction of the neighborhood. Joel said that the Mac-Groveland
Community Council was concerned with bus connections, which would include the
Cleveland/Vandalia station. Otherwise, people were okay with continuing our support.
In terms of bus connectors, the one thing that needs to be done is maintaining the #16
service is very important.
In terms of pedestrian and bicycle disability access and safety, the pedestrian crosswalks
have been included, and St. Paul has addressed plans for the area in its Central Corridor
Bike/Walk Plan. Ron Lischeid raised the issue of mid-block crossings to stations, and
whether those would be possible. Joel Clemmer suggested this would be the place to
make reference to the planning to bicycle routes to the area, and that we need to make
that happen. Joel said that it was his impression the City was spending a lot of time
planning for bicycling through the City, but not to the LRT.
In terms of traffic operations, Karen raised the issues of traffic lights and synchronization.
Ron Lischeid said that we need to take a look at a letter the U of M is currently working
on, and see if there is anything we want to add to this in terms of betterments. Ellen
McPartlin suggested changing the idea of straightening the alignment through
downtown St. Paul to a concern over the 4th Street extension to the maintenance facility.
In terms of business preservation and access, Phil thought a statement should be put in
the document about parking preservation and access, and some new support for internal
block parking to replace the lost parking, making our feelings about parking somewhat
different than the original. Carol said that there is anticipated demand at the Snelling,
Lexington and Dale street stations of several hundred people per station per day in the
DEIS that would get to the stations by cars, raising other issues that haven’t been dealt
with. Mark suggested that we favor local service parking facilities over park and ride
facilities inside of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
June 10, 2009 – Governing Council
5
In terms of property values, nothing has really been done on the issue. Ellen wondered
if any suggestions have been raised about lowering property values around the OMF.
Gentrification is another major issue that needs someone to push for solutions, but we
can’t delve deeply into that at this point.
In terms of streetscapes, public art/aesthetics, and open spaces, we have not seen as
much involvement in public art as we would have wanted to see. Station design has
been very standardized, but there is some variation in materials allowed.
In terms of land use, there has been planning for the Central Corridor Development
Strategy, and Station Area Planning, as well as Station Area Planning in Minneapolis.
Ron Lischeid suggested including the traction power substations and signal bungalows
in the land use section as well.
In terms of citizen participation, the CAC exists but is problematic; transparency is still a
very frequent issue. The Community Statement we’ve been working on has been well
received by elected officials.
Anne suggested people look through the list and if people have any thoughts, people
can share those as well.
11. Update on Community Statement & Summit II
Carol noted that we ran into a couple dates with problems, but now we’re looking at
July 7th as a date for the Summit, and the length of the Summit is being debated as well.
We’ve looked at revisions to the Community Statement and how to go about doing
those. The good news is that the Community Statement has been really well received by
the elected officials, and it’s a good jumping-off point to create a really solid agreement.
We’re inviting the elected officials to come to the Summit II and look at what kind of
process we can put in place to create a written agreement. The group that the Funders
Collaborative had convened to look at this is also in agreement with this, and so we’re in
a really good place to move forward.
Ron asked whether Hennepin County has been there. Carol said that Hennepin County
has not been well represented at any of these meetings. Councilmember Cam Gordon
from Minneapolis has been there, and the Mayor’s office has been represented at one of
the three meetings. If the DCC wishes to take the lead on the community side, there is an
opportunity to secure funding through the Funders Collaborative to provide the
additional capacity and resources needed to support the effort.
DCC COMMITTEES
12. Organizational Planning. After adjourning, the Governing Council broke into its
committee groups to discuss future efforts and set meeting dates.
13. Evaluation of Meeting. Anne asked for people’s evaluation of the meeting.
14. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned.
June 10, 2009 – Governing Council
6