►
From YouTube: October 15, 2015 Intergovernmental Relations
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
afternoon,
I
am
calling
to
order
our
regularly
scheduled
meeting
of
the
intergovernmental
relations
committee.
We
have
two
items
on
our
agenda
and
the
first
is
a
presentation
regarding
the
federal
clean
power
plan
and,
as
part
of
this,
we
would
be
adapting
support
for
the
new
federal
Environmental
Protection
Agency's,
clean
power
plan
rules
as
part
of
our
2016
federal
legislative
agenda
and
directing
the
city
attorney
with
assistance
from
the
sustainability
office
to
coordinate
with
the
city's
role
in
defending
the
clean
power
plan,
including
authorization
to
file
or
participate
in
the
filing
of
amicus
briefs.
A
B
Mentioned
here's
the
requested
action
and
I
think
to
the
first
bullet.
We
do
want
to
make
one
tiny
amendment
to
the
language
that
we're
proposing,
but
just
a
little
bit
of
background
on
october.
Third,
this
year,
president
obama
and
the
epa
actually
announced
their
new
clean
power
plan
rolls
these
rules
were
in
discussion
for
years.
There
were
lots
of
comments
take
and
there
were
proposed
rules,
but
the
final
rules
came
out-
and
this
is
a
really
important
step
for
the
US
in
reducing
carbon
pollution
from
the
biggest
source.
B
That's
electric
power
plants
or
I
think
the
EPA
estimates
that
at
one-third
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions
come
from
electricity
from
power
plants.
So
this
is
a
really
great
opportunity
for
the
city
to
meet
our
climate
change
goals,
which
are
eighty
percent
by
2050,
and
also
work
on
state
issues
as
well.
B
Basically,
what
the
rules
do
is
every
state
has
carbon
goals
that
they
have
to
meet
for
Minnesota
it's
forty
percent,
and
so
then
the
states
all
have
to
develop
their
plans.
So
I
think
the
way
that
the
feds
put
it
together
is
that
it's
consistent
nationally,
there's
accountability.
There's
a
really
clear
idea
and
what
counts
and
what
doesn't
and
it
kind
of
tries
to
level
the
playing
field
for
each
state's
energy
mix.
B
Also
just
a
reminder,
I
think
all
council
members
earlier
this
year
actually
sent
signed
on
to
a
letter
to
Governor
Dayton,
supporting
urging
him
to
support
the
new
carbon
rules
and
to
work
on
developing
a
really
robust
state
climate
clean
power
plan.
So
this
is
actually
consistent
with
that
action
as
well.
I
think
why
we
want
to
do
this
is
like
I
mentioned
before.
B
Obviously,
we
want
the
city
to
meet
our
greenhouse
gas
emission
goals,
and
since
electricity
is
a
big
part
of
that,
this
is
a
easy
stuff
that
we
can
take
I
think
reducing
coal
plants
obviously
will
clean
up
our
air.
It
provides
a
chance
for
to
create
green
jobs
and
the
green
economy,
which
councilmember,
glidden
and
others
have
worked
on
real
strongly
in
the
past
few
years.
B
I
think
it's
also
to
remember
that.
One
of
the
reasons
we're
really
interested
in
greenhouse
gas
emissions
is
to
reduce
the
effects
of
adapting
to
this
change
in
climate
in
Minnesota.
We
know
that
our
most
severe
rains
are
now
thirty
one
percent
stronger
than
they
were
just
a
few
decades
ago.
So
the
more
that
we
can
reduce
our
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
the
less
likelihood
we'll
have
of
such
catastrophic
effects
like
flooding
and
heating.
B
B
Litigation
has
already
started
and
it
actually
will
ramp
up
in
the
next
30
days
and
so
I
think
Minneapolis,
along
with
a
lot
of
other
kind
of
cutting-edge
cities
across
the
u.s.,
have
been
asked
to
join
a
group
of
states
and
other
cities
led
by
the
city
and
state
of
New
York.
In
supporting
the
EPA's
action.
Corey
Conover
from
the
attorney's
office
and
I
have
been
participating.
B
So
basically
we're
just
adding
language
that
talks
about
the
city,
adopting
our
target
of
eighty
percent
by
greenhouse
gas
emissions
by
2050,
we're
talking
about
the
EPA
and
President
Obama's
new
goals
for
power
plants.
We're
adding
not
just
that.
This
is
our
agenda
for
Congress,
but
also
for
federal
agencies.
Since
this
clean
power
plan
won't
go
to
Congress.
This
is
all
done
at
the
agency
level
and
supporting
not
just
clean
energy
resources,
but
making
clear
that
when
we
talk
about
clean
energy
resources,
we're
also
talking
about
energy
efficiency.
B
So,
under
the
clean
power
plan,
it's
all
about
moving
away
from
coal,
but
it's
also
about
energy
efficiency
and
renewable
energy
as
well
and
then,
finally,
it's
making
clear
in
the
recommendation
that
we
support
adopting
standards
delivered
carbon
emissions
from,
and
this
is
the
one
word
we
need
to
add.
We
want
to
add
the
word
existing
and
then
I
also
have
new
modified
or
reconstructed
power
plants,
and
so.
A
And
I
apologize
mr.
post
I.
Actually
don't
have
that
letter
in
front
of
me
and
I'm
having
trouble
with
my
computer,
so
is
that
an
attached
letter
that
you're
suggesting
to
send
because
an
action
here
is
just
adopting
support
for
the
clean
power
plan
rules
as
part
of
our
federal
legislative
agenda
was
that
language?
That's
in
the
federal
legislative
agenda,
suggestion
yeah,
okay,
that's
all
right!
Then
we
will
did
folks
understand
the
amendment
that
ms
pressed
gested
in
colleagues
all
right,
then
I
will
go
ahead.
Is
there
more
to
your
presentation?
Okay,
then?
A
What
I
will
do
then
is
I
will
go
ahead
and
move
approval
of
this
item,
which
has
the
two
parts
with
the
slight
change
that
ms
pressed
has
suggested
to
the
wording
that
would
appear
in
our
2016
federal
legislative
agenda
and
ask
if
there
is
any
discussion
seeing
none
on
approval,
please
say
aye,
I
hosed
and
that
item
is
approved.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
Committee
members
good
afternoon,
Melissa
lush
with
intergovernmental
relations,
office
and
I'm,
just
going
to
be
doing
a
really
quick
update
about
where
we
are
with
our
capital,
investment
and
bonding
process
for
the
2016
legislative
session.
As
you
know,
we're
going
to
be
hosting
a
series
of
tours
and
we
completed
our
second
tour.
Just
yesterday,
back
in
September
we
hosted
the
Commissioner
of
Management
and
Budget
and
his
staff
for
a
day,
long
tour
of
Minneapolis
and
Minneapolis
park
board
projects.
C
Just
yesterday
we
hosted
the
house
capital
investment
committee,
the
chair
and
several
members,
along
with
a
lot
of
members
of
the
Minneapolis
delegation
at
end
of
the
tourists
like
to
thank
them
for
joining
and
several
staff
as
well.
Yesterday
they
started
the
tour
at
the
University
of
Minnesota,
seeing
some
projects
there
first
thing
in
the
morning
and
then
proceeded
on
to
kind
of
a
county
projects,
some
Minneapolis
ones
in
the
Minneapolis
parking
records.
So
it's
been
a
good
couple
of
tours.
We
have
one
more
tour
coming
up.
C
December
15th
is
e
penciled
in
date,
nothing's
locked
in
yet,
but
expect
it
will
be
December
15th
that
will
be
hosting
the
Senate
tour
and
tomorrow
is
the
due
date
for
final
submission
for
our
projects
to
Minnesota,
Management
and
Budget,
and
so
I
would
definitely
like
to
thank
all
of
the
staff
at
the
city.
Staff
in
the
fire
department
see
pad
and
Public
Works
all
who
work
very
hard
to
get
these
projects
ready
for
submission
to
MMB,
and
we
are
ready
to
go
so
with
that
man.
Chair
of
there
any
questions,
I
will
wait.
D
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
council,
members,
Lauren
Olsen
government
relations
representative
I'm
here
just
to
give
you
a
couple
updates
related
to
airport
issues.
This
committee
has
followed
very
closely
the
trajectory
of
the
long-term
comprehensive
plan
for
Minneapolis,
st.
Paul
International
Airport
I'm,
including
a
report
you
got
from
Metropolitan
Airport
Commission
staff
back
in
July,
as
you
know
soon.
D
So
that
was
a
surprise
and
it
necessarily
meant
that
we
were
going
to
see
a
change
in
operations
at
the
airport
and
the
way
that
runways
were
used
and
since
the
way
that
runways
are
used
as
a
critical
concern
to
our
residents,
it
determines
where
the
noise
is
going
to
be
how
we
expressed
concern
that
we
we
really
needed
to
know
what
impact
is
going
to
be
before
we
could
kind
of
engage
the
public
appropriately
on
the
plan.
So
we
expressed
these
concerns
to
the
metropolitan
airports.
D
Commission,
a
subcommittee
considered
the
issue
on
September,
eighth
and
the
subcommittee
at
that
time,
oded
to
proceed
with
the
plan
and
and
not
delay
it,
but
they
did
want
staff
to
explore
what
could
be
done
to
address
our
concerns,
including
extending
the
comment
period,
or
that
was
the
idea
at
the
time
after
that
meeting
I
think
there's
some
more
discussion
that
happened
behind
the
scenes
about
what
would
really
address
the
issue
and
and
I
think
there
was
some
understanding
that
what
we
were
asking
for
was
a
prudent
request.
D
So
in
September
21st
the
mat
Commission
actually
got
a
recommendation
from
their
staff
to
delay
the
plan
until
the
new
procedures
were
in
place
and
could
be
studied.
So
the
FAA
is
about
to
conclude
their
60-day
period,
examining
new
the
new
flight
procedures
and
then,
after
that,
Mac
wants
to
collect
data
for
a
couple
months.
So
by
the
end
of
this
month,
the
60-day
period
should
conclude,
and
that
was
the
FAA
is
time
to
determine.
D
If
the
changes
would
work
for
them
operationally
turned
out
what
they're
exploring
doing
is
not
drastically
different
from
what
had
been
done
before.
It's
just
that
their
capacity
was
somewhat
reduced
because
they
are
going
to
go
back
to
using
those
two
runways
together.
It's
just
that
they
have
to
allow
a
lot
more
time
in
between
flights,
so
there
may
be
some
patterns
that
resemble
what
we
seen
in
the
past,
but
until
late
august
we
really
had
no
idea
what
was
going
to
result
from
the
runway,
suspension
and
changes.
D
So
it's
a
prudent
to
action
to
wait
to
study
these
impacts
and
then
I
that
way
we
can
engage
the
public
on
this
issue,
so
this
means
that
the
schedule
has
changed
I'm.
Originally
the
public
was
expected
to
be
engaged.
This
fall.
But
at
this
point
you
know
with
the
collecting
data
for
a
couple
months
in
producing
new
noise
contours,
the
comment
period
will
now
be
in
the
spring,
and
potential
adoption
of
the
plan
will
then
be
in
the
summer
potentially
in
June.
D
So
that's
update
on
that
is
there.
Are
there
any
questions
about
the
status
of
a
long
term
comp
plan
no
now
to
spray
flee?
Mention
that
the
FAA
reauthorization
bill
it
was
due
to
be
reauthorized.
It
was
going
to
expire
in
September
in
September.
30Th
Congress
took
action
to
extend
the
authority
of
the
FAA
until
March
of
2016.
D
There
seems
to
be
a
belief
that
they
might
be
ready
to
actually
take
more
permanent
action
in
March
rather
than
another
extension.
A
key
issue
that
we're
following
in
this
process
is
there's
a
robust
discussion
about
the
status
of
the
the
FAA
and
air
traffic
control
and
kind
of
the
type
of
body
that
they
are
and
whether
or
not
to
kind
to
consider
a
different
type
of
entity
that
might
be
more
independent
from
things
like
budget
swings
and
other
influences
for
some
people.
D
Part
of
the
reasoning
behind
that
is
that
they
want
to
expedite
implementation
of
performance-based
navigation
and
next-gen
and
apparently
having
federal
too
much
federal
oversight
has
has
seen
as
a
barrier
or
too
much
input
from
basically
our
representatives
in
Congress.
So
this
is
a
concern
for
us,
because
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
continue
to
have
a
voice
for
people
affected
by
this
procedure,
so
that
might
be
going
in
the
wrong
direction.
So
that's
something
that
we're
gonna
follow
closely
going
forward.