►
From YouTube: August 27, 2014 Special Minneapolis City Council Meeting
Description
Special Minneapolis City Council Meeting
A
D
A
B
A
A
C
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair
and
I
was
happy.
It
would
have
been
happy
to
move
that,
but
now
I'm
just
getting
oriented
that
we're
following
the
council
will
sorry
about
that.
I
just
want
to
do
a
knowledge,
the
the
efforts
that
went
into
getting
these
agreements.
I
think
it's
really
significant.
This
isn't
something
that
was
on
my
radar
many
many
months
ago,
but
thanks
in
large
part,
I
believe,
to
the
mayor's
office.
C
But
I
also
wanted
to
acknowledge
the
council,
vice-president
and
councilmember
reich
for
making
this
public
ownership
a
part
of
the
negotiations
in
part
of
the
discussions
and
then
following
through
to
to
get
these
agreements
with
head.
Both
Hennepin
County
and
met
council
is
very
significant,
so
I'll
be
supporting
this
and
very
appreciative
of
the
work
I'm
sure
staff
was
involved
in
it
as
well.
Thank.
A
F
G
F
Madam
chair
councilmember
Goodman,
it
is
important
to
note
what
the
status
quo
is.
There
are
sharp
limits
on
the
power
of
any
local
government
to
control
what
the
private
sector
freight
companies
will
do
even
on
land,
even
on
tracks
that
are
controlled,
which,
by
the
public
sector,
which
is
not
usual,
usually
they
own
their
own
tracks,
but
even
when
the
public
sector
ellen's
the
tracks
federal
law
preempts
much
of
what
we
would
like
to
do,
much
of
what
hennepin
county
would
like
to
do.
F
F
Tcw
itself
could
run
more
trains
with
a
more
dangerous
mix
of
products
and
there's
nothing
we
can
do
about
it.
So
one
might
ask
what
is
the
value
of
public
ownership
it's
easy
to
express
as
what
would
happen
if
we
didn't
have
public
ownership.
If
we
didn't
have
public
ownership,
we
would
be
increasing
the
chances
that
those
two
things
would
occur
if
the
public
did
not
preserve
ownership
of
land
that
they
own,
which
is
unusual
under
freight
tracks.
F
If
we
didn't
preserve
that
the
public
sector
would
be
needlessly
increasing
the
chances
that
that
there
would
be
more
dangerous
product
mix
and
it
there
would
be
more
frequent
trains,
we
would
be
doing
that
through
two
things.
If
we
were
to
allow
the
land
to
come
into
private
hands,
we
would
be
increasing
the
value
as
an
acquisition
target
tmw
would
be
more
likely
to
be
purchased
by
a
bigger
railroad
and,
more
importantly,
the
trackage
rights
agreement
negotiated
by
hickory
would
go
away.
Trackage
rights
agreement
was
negotiated
between
a
public
entity
and
a
private
railroad.
F
F
Councilmember
Goodman.
You
also
asked
me
earlier
who
will
own
the
freight
and
if
I
could
just
go
ahead
and
answer
that
question
now
these
agreements
with
Met,
Council
and
hennepin
county
do
not
answer
the
question
of
who
will
ultimately
own
the
freight.
They
answer
the
question
of
who
won't
own
the
freight,
a
private
sector
railroad,
but
the
ultimate
owner
could
end
up
continuing
to
be
Hennepin
County.
It
could
end
up
being
the
Metropolitan
Council.
F
There
were
earlier
versions
which
included
contingencies
that
were
unacceptable
to
the
city,
unacceptable
to
the
mayor,
to
councilmember,
glidden
and
council
member
rach
contingencies
that
made
the
agreement
dependent
on
future
actions
of
the
Metropolitan
Council.
That
was
unacceptable
to
the
city
as
as
our
friend
and
Ally
senator
Dibble
said,
we've
seen
that
movie
before
and
we
know
how
it
ends.
F
We
insisted
on
agreement
that
didn't
include
any
of
those
contingencies:
the
land,
the
agreement
we
have
with
Hennepin
County,
attaches
to
the
land
itself,
to
the
land
itself,
it'll
be
recordable
and
put
in
the
Hennepin
County
Recorder's
office,
so
three
years
from
now
or
fifteen
years
from
now,
if
a
private
sector
entity
wanted
to
buy
the
land,
they
would
discover.
Oh
wait
it.
They
can't
because
the
land
carries
with
it
this
agreement
and
that
agreement,
the
terms
of
that
will
have
to
be
honored
by
a
subsequent
owner.
F
If
it's
transferred
to
the
met
council
or
hanap
and
county,
there
is
one
contingency
that
has
been
brought
up
as
recently
as
yesterday
and
this
morning,
that
is
in
the
agreement.
It
is
contingent
on
South
West
LRT
itself,
but
that's
no
different
than
the
status
quo.
The
status
quo
prior
to
this
agreement
being
insisted
upon
by
the
mayor
council,
member
glidden
and
councilmember
Reich,
is
that
hennepin
county
could
sell
the
land
tomorrow.
The
only
reason
we're
having
this
conversation
that
public
ownership
is
within
the
context
of
South
West
LRT.
F
G
Madam
chair
mr.
guinea,
it's
just
one
more
question:
there's
been
a
suggestion
that
we
should
perhaps
delay
our
vote
and
renegotiate
for
something
better
I,
don't
know
how
you
get
something
better
out
of
a
party
that
didn't
even
want
to
do
what
we're
getting,
but
nonetheless,
wouldn't
a
delay
or
a
renegotiation
trigger
the
municipal
consent
being
adopted
without
any
of
these
conditions.
In
other
words,
we
don't
set
the
timeline
for
municipal
consent.
A
F
Genious
man,
I'm
sure,
councilmember
good
night.
I
take
from
that
two
questions.
First,
it's
important
to
note
that
we
have
a
duty
to
respond.
As
susan
siegel
has
advised,
we
have
a
duty
to
respond
under
the
municipal
consent
statute
and
if
we
were
not
to
respond,
the
answer
would
be
yes
with
no
with
nothing
attached
in
the
form
of
these
mo
use.
F
F
That's
that's
all
of
the
agencies
except
the
city
of
Minneapolis.
It's
it's
worth
noting
that
of
all
the
agencies
who
voted
at
the
at
the
court
or
management
committee.
Only
the
city
of
Minneapolis,
both
in
its
vote
when
mayor
rybak
was
our
representative
and
again
earlier
this
year,
when
Mayor
Hodges
was
our
representative.
Only
the
city
of
Minneapolis
was
willing
to
rear
out
the
freight
by
sending
it
to
the
surface
transportation
board.
F
All
of
the
other
agencies,
including
hennepin
county
and
MnDOT,
voted
to
for
colocation
at
grade,
so
the
land
is
going
to
end
up
in
the
hands
of
one
of
the
agencies
that
supported
colocation,
because
the
met
council
representatives
supported
that.
Obviously,
the
Hennepin
County
representative,
supported
colocation
degrade
the
MnDOT
representatives
supported
colocation
at
grade.
So
the
request
to
find
an
agency
that
didn't
support
colocation
at
grade
and
have
them
on
the
land
isn't
possible
because
we
would
need
to
create
a
new
agency.
A
All
right,
I'm,
just
looking
around
I,
want
to
make
sure
I've
captured
everyone
who
who
wants
to
come
out
there,
maybe
just
one
further
clarification
that
I
wanted
and
I
guess.
Since
mr.
virginia's
has
been
responding,
you
you
maybe
can
again
just
to
clarify
what
actions
have
happened
by
the
Met
Council
to
date
and
by
Hennepin
County
to
date
on
these
agreements.
Maybe
this
is
more
appropriate
for
our
city
attorney
susan
siegel,
just
so
we
know
kind
of
the
timeline
and
where
we
are
at
in
the
process
to
ensure
that
these
agreements
are
executed.
E
Madam
chair,
both
of
the
governing
boards,
the
Metropolitan
Council,
has
approved
the
Memorandum
of
Understanding
on
their
part
and
the
Hennepin
County
Regional
Rail
Authority
on
the
memorandum
of
understanding
with
that
entity
has
also
approved.
We
anticipate
that
the
city
will
also
be
able
to
sign
off
on
these
agreements
of
following
final
approval
by
the
City
Council
and
publication.
You
know
those
minor
things.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
would
just
like
to
offer
my
personal
thanks
to
the
many
city
staff
that
have
helped
ensure
that
we
have
a
good
and
strong
and
accurate
agreement
that
reflects
these
commitments,
especially
our
city
attorney,
susan
siegel,
Corey
Conover
from
the
City
Attorney's
Office,
Director,
Kottke
and
many
other
supportive
staff.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
that.
G
You,
madam
chair
I'm,
happy
to
give
him
over
the
last
word.
I'll
just
go
right
now,
even
though
she
was
first
in
line
I
think
we
have
to
vote
for
this
today.
I,
don't
see
any
other
way
around
it.
This
isn't
a
vote
in
favor
of
municipal
consent.
It's
a
vote
in
favor
of
agreement
to
give
us
a
teeny,
tiny
bit
of
leverage.
G
It's
certainly
no
guarantee
in
the
end
that
there'll
be
public
ownership
that
will
prevent
freight,
but
it's
currently
way
better
than
the
status
quo
and
I
for
one
I'm
not
going
to
be
one
who
holds
out
for
the
ideal
instead
of
the
good,
because
in
this
case
this
is
good.
It's
not
great,
it's
not
a
guarantee,
but
it
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
I
see
absolutely
no
reason
why
everyone
shouldn't
vote
for
this
today,
Thank.
A
H
H
One
of
the
comments
that
has
been
made
is
that
things
weren't
written
down
in
the
past,
and
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
find
ourselves
here
is
that
things
weren't
written
down
in
a
binding
way.
We
weren't
responsible
for
that.
We
can't
correct
that
at
the
moment
we
are
doing
our
best
to
move
forward
in
the
most
responsible
way,
but
what
we
can
do
is
make
damn
sure
it
doesn't
happen
again,
and
so
these
I've
had
and
has
been
shared
with
everybody.
H
Who's
been
working
on
this
and
insistence
from
the
beginning
that
every
agreement
we
made
is
written
down
and
signed
off
on
by
the
by
the
relevant
bodies,
and
that
is
no
less
true
and
no
less
urgent
than
in
this
particular
case
about
this
land
ownership.
But
you
know
the
case
has
been
made
for
why
it's
important
and
I
am
making
the
case
for
why.
It's
important
that
we
write
it
down.
B
A
You
before
we
adjourn
I
want
to
have
a
couple
of
announcements.
First,
our
next
city
council
meeting
is
this
coming
Friday
on
August
twenty-ninth
2014,
where
we
will
also
consider
our
items
that
were
afforded
by
the
transportation
Public
Works
Committee,
including
the
municipal
consent
piece
and
and
then
also
to
Mike
I'll
eggs.
Just
so
you
know
we
have
a
another
meeting
following
this.