SWLRT and Channel Walls
Can park board decisions undermine the strength of its own established policies? Can park board decisions dilute the primacy of our unique mission? Yes and yes……take for example the recent board decision to waive MPRB easement fees for SWLRT.
On August 17th, an amendment passed in committee which required SWLRT to pay easement fees to MPRB for draining and closing a portion of the Kenilworth Channel and for using parkland to host construction equipment. At our September 7th board meeting, President Forney initiated a motion to suspend the rules in order to remove the amendment. The motion to suspend the rules passed and commissioners chose to remove the amendment 5-4. Commissioners didn’t want to charge SWLRT fees for the disruption to parkland and park users in issuing their needed construction permit.
Here is more background - SWLRT requested a permit to rebuild the section of the WPA-era walls they deconstructed when building the rail bridges over the channel. MPRB staff recommended waiving easement fees because this section of the wall would be in better condition than what was removed and the rebuild cost was comparable to the easement fees. (SWLRT will not be rebuilding the whole wall but attaching the newly constructed walls into old sections.)
Please read the rational for my amendment:
SWLRT contractors needed to remove portions of the WPA-era rock walls in the Kenilworth Channel in order to build the SWLRT bridges;
The Met Council is obligated to rebuild the walls removed and repair those sections damaged per their agreement with SHPO and the FTA under Section 106;
The Kenilworth Channel connecting Lake of the Isles to Cedar Lake will be closed to park users from Sept 2022 through spring/early summer of 2024 due to two different SWLRT permits, including this one
The wildlife in the channel will be displaced by dewatering and the area’s habitat compromised (directly challenging our Park for All Goal 6: Strengthen Ecological Connections);
Heavy construction equipment (including one crane) will be placed on parkland and two paths constructed down to the channel for trucks to access the wall work;
MPRB construction permits need to align with the guidance “creates no detrimental impact to parkland or park users”;
This permit will create a detrimental impact to parkland (compaction of soil, tree roots through the traffic of heavy equipment, denying access to parkland due to work) and park users through closing access and dewatering the channel(people, plants and wildlife).
Finally, our regional parks are heavily subsidized by Minneapolis tax payers (MPRB gets roughly 11% of its regional operations budget from state/Met Council). For Met Council to pay these fees for temporarily using parkland to do their project repair is not unreasonable. My amendment directed the $272,000 in easement fees to stay within the MPRB planning budget for funding asset management/rehab projects. I acknowledge these fees are a substantial number….but in a 2.7 billion dollar project? Miniscule.
By commissioners removing this amendment, did we incur a greater cost in directly undermining our own MPRB policy around issuing construction permits? This permit directly creates detrimental impact to parkland and park users. Did we incur a greater cost in not upholding our primary mission to “preserve, protect, maintain, improve, and enhance its natural resources, parkland, and recreational opportunities for current and future generations of our region including people, plants, and wildlife”? How does the board decide who or what project will get a pass on our established policies and central pillars of our work?
By requiring Met Council to pay the $272,000 of easement fees would have added cost to a project already greatly over budget, yet the cost to the park board in not supporting its’ own policies and mission in this decision…...much greater.