| Home |
| About SHA |
| Projects and Committees |
| City Resources & Links |
| Crime Prevention |
| District 16 Plan |
| Calendar |
| Newsletter |
| Contact SHA |
 |
|
Board of Directors Summit Hill Association District 16 Planning Council
Members Present: Barrera, Breymeier, Brostrom, Clapp-Smith, Dobson, Flahaven, Hardy, Zoltai Guests Present: Alberts, Chen, McClure, Nimmer Members Absent: Linder, Preus, Reding-Galarneault, Sanders
Clapp-Smith called the Meeting to order at 1. Additions to the Agenda: There were no additions to the agenda 2. Approval of March Meeting minutes Siekmeier made a revision to the March Meeting minutes, Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Calming Committee report, paragraph two. Members of the St. Paul Legislative Delegation have previously opposed increasing the speed limit on 35E, and supported maintaining all conditions set by the 1984 Correct the misspelling of John Lesch. A motion was made to approve the March Meeting minutes as amended. The motion was seconded and approved. 3. District Council Policy Session – Position Statement Clapp-Smith provided an update on the meeting with the city in regards to the role of district councils. A letter stating the wide variance of per capita funding each district receives was distributed. A number of questions were raised regarding the base operating costs of districts, whether the current system is fair; or should it be based on the number of constituents represented or level of poverty. The councils do not agree which method of determination is equitable. Our council is very small and we would loose lots of funding if based on the number of constituents or poverty level and would be hard to maintain. The city does not seem too eager to change the current formula. Hardy asked how districts were originally established? Some areas already had existing organizations and they were left as is, other areas did not have any council and boundaries were established. Barreras asked why these changes have been proposed at this time. Distribution of base funds is not equitable per capita. Base funding per capita ranges from over $6 per person to slightly over $1 per person. Neighborhoods with larger populations and lower per capita funding do not feel that the funding is fair. The diversity and low income of certain districts makes it more difficult to reach out to the community and get citizen participation. The city is also questioning the district council’s ability to accommodate and represent the diverse neighborhoods. O’Toole stated that Chuck Repke issued a letter about diversity and representation and fairness. There was nothing more said after one person stood up and said how dare you criticize our organizations when the planning commissions shows no diversity. O’Toole believes that the real issue is financial support not diversity. Low income neighborhoods are getting funding from other sources such as grants that our neighborhood does not have access to. Many neighborhoods would love the development that is happening in our neighborhood. These neighborhoods do not understand our opposition; they believe this would be a great problem to have. However, this opposition and monitoring of development costs our district lots of time and money. Flahaven stated that there is a base-funding amount provided to districts. Has a minimum amount to run each district council been calculated? Policy restricting the amount of time for opposition should be put on the city council agenda. City council proposes change either to split larger districts or merge smaller ones. District council’s provide a lot of service but we were not established to provide social services. Summit Hill Association’s position is to maintain a base amount to operate and the minimum amount identified and calculated, keep our district intact, and focus on increasing the diversity of our board. Districts will need to focus on tenant, minority participation in order to address diversity issues. A motion was made to approve our position. The motion was seconded and approved. A summary of the services provided by the district councils should be sent to the city council to show the representation that they provide to the communities. A position statement will be written and sent to the city. 4. Vote on forwarding District 16 Plan to the City of Clapp-smith provided the status of the District 16 Plan. The current plan was updated to include comments made at the most recent meeting. No additional comments have been included since its issuance. Comments from the meeting with Stolpestead regarding restrictions on height and development were not included. He will have his say at the public hearing to make comments. After that time the city will take the comments under advisements and make changes. Brian Wengers comments have also not been included. His comments were distributed at the meeting. He wants the plan to be laid over to include his comments before sending them off to the city. Flahaven stated that it is inappropriate to take board time to discuss one person’s point of view. There were discussions on limiting the amount of bars and entertainment license on Smith asked Clapp-Smith to share the city’s comments regarding overlay district. The overlay district would follow at the heels of the plan. Thune has supported us looking at Dobson brought up the recommendation of the 25,000 s.f. maximum for new development with a total of 75,000 s.f. on three levels. Larry Soderholm issued a memo of examples of buildings along grand that are about the same size. Enforcement of underground parking is in question. There needs to be some legal changes in the code in order for the plan to be enforceable. Item No. 2 (on Wenger’s list) is already covered by our 25,000 s.f. restriction, which is a reasonable size based on the other buildings along Grand of that size. A question was raised to add general language in the background sections about the concern about bars and entertainment in the neighborhood. Some behavior displayed by their patrons is not in concert with a residential neighborhood. These inappropriate behaviors will ultimate affect the businesses along Grand due to the deterioration and destruction of property. Flahaven made a motion to adopt the plan. The motion was seconded. The vote was unanimous, with one abstaining. 5. Use of Roberts Rules in In interest of keeping the meeting on time, this item was deferred to the end of the meeting and will be taken up at the next meeting if not enough time to discuss. 6. Review of Board policy on e-mail use Rules regarding the use of email addresses were read. Andy Driscol stated that in the interest of citizen participation that email addresses should be as accessible as phone number. The board is at odds about how to handle the distribution of email addresses. Some people believe it should be public other believe there is too much access and could include viruses that could cause bid problems. A motion was made to hold over this discussion until the next meeting. 7. Committee Reports A.
|