This transcript is from the White Bear Lake City Council meeting held on February 22, 2022. I have identified the speakers based on the context of the meeting, including **Mayor Dan Steffen**, Public Works Director **Paul Kauppi** (referred to as "Mr. Copy" in the raw text), City Manager **Lindsey Crawford**, and Councilmembers **Walsh, Hughes, Jones, Edberg,** and **Engstran**. *** **[00:00] Informal Conversation:** So my face runs down [Music] she did on Thursday the other night and like City Council throwing her off and said, "Sorry, we are in a City Council meeting. It's Thursday." She's just like, "I can't believe it." It's never anything critical asking. That was so funny when we walked with you guys, we're like, "Okay, they're going to think that's the guy." That's not even the guy, and I feel like I've met him before. Oh my gosh, two years ago. Oh, Nick? Yeah, Nick. Nick's around. Yes, if we see him at church now, we always sit with him. He's a really nice kid and he's in theater with Anne, and yeah, and they're good friends and he's all up to speed too, so he was laughing about it too. Okay, so she was—she was more into the relationship than she was in the camp. Yeah, and she figured it out and he did too, and they do very good. They're both good. So yeah, it was good practice. She said, "Yeah, good practice." That's good. You know, it's good to feel good about yourself that somebody is interested in you, gives you a comment. **[01:26] Mayor Dan Steffen:** All right, Mike here. Uh, the clerk will note those in attendance. (It will be noted.) All right, will you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." **[01:52] Mayor Dan Steffen:** All right, we'll move on to Item 2a: Minutes of the regular City Council meeting on February 8th, 2022. Are there any corrections to the minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. **[02:05] Councilmember:** So moved. **[02:06] Councilmember:** Second. **[02:07] Mayor Dan Steffen:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye.) Any opposed? The minutes are approved. Item 2b: Minutes from the City Council work session on February 17th, 2022. Any corrections to the minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. **[02:25] Councilmember:** Second. **[02:26] Mayor Dan Steffen:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye.) Any opposed? And the motion carries; minutes pass. **[02:34] Mayor Dan Steffen:** Moving on to adoption of the agenda. I understand that our Fire Chief has been occupied with a house fire that's literally ongoing a little bit behind us, so we will not be having him present on the Fire Department report. That's the only change I have to the agenda. Was there anything else? So, noting that we're not going to be discussing that, I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda. **[03:00] Councilmember:** I have a motion. **[03:02] Councilmember:** Second. **[03:03] Mayor Dan Steffen:** All those in favor of approving the agenda say aye. (Aye.) Any opposed? We have an agenda. Moving on to Item 4: The consent agenda. Do I have motion to approve that? **[03:15] Councilmember:** I have a motion. **[03:17] Councilmember:** Second. **[03:18] Mayor Dan Steffen:** All those in favor say aye. (Aye.) Any opposed? And the consent agenda is approved. Moving on to Item 5: Visitors and presentations. We have nothing scheduled. And Item 6: Public hearings, specifically the resolution ordering improvements, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisements for bids for the 2022 South Shore Boulevard sanitary sewer extension, City Project Number 22-08. Mr. Kauppi. **[03:48] Paul Kauppi (Public Works Director):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. So tonight we have the 2022 South Shore Boulevard sanitary sewer extension project. This is being done as part of the Ramsey County South Shore Boulevard reconstruction project and trail project for completion of the "Around the Lakes" trail on the south side of the lake. So this is a perfect opportunity to—while the road is torn up and closed—extend that sanitary sewer to approximately 13 residents. If you look at where the arrow is on the map behind me, that is an area that we're trying to service with sanitary sewer. It's one of the two remaining areas within the City of White Bear Lake that still has—that are still on septic systems there—and then kind of a little area on the far north tip of White Bear Lake. So we want to try to do that to prevent contaminants from septic systems from contaminating the lake. So anytime we have an opportunity to extend that service, it's definitely a benefit. So like I said, there is 13 properties. Two of them do not have homes on them, so there's 11 that actually are using septic. Two of them—up behind me—the lot with the zero on it is a buildable lot but not built on currently, and then 2464 is owned by the church and may or may not ever get service, but we'll extend service to that in case that lot ever becomes a buildable lot—I should say it is a buildable lot, but if it ever gets built on. The project scope: again, it's being part of a bigger project with the South Shore Boulevard project, which is from White Bear Avenue east to the east county line through White Bear and White Bear Township. We're extending about 750 feet of sanitary sewer to service those lots. We'll also provide service from that main to the right-of-way line. The homeowners would still have to connect from the homes to that sewer connection, which would basically involve abandoning their septic system. And in some cases, due to elevation changes, especially the homes on the lake side, we need to install small ejector pumps that would then pump up to that service. The total estimated project cost that was provided is approximately $166,400. That would then be looked at as far as an assessment goes. So we worked with an independent appraiser looking at the value added to those homes for municipal service, and based on the total project costs, we're looking at $11,000 per lot to provide that access and sanitary sewer main extension, generally falling within typical new construction that would provide service. The proposed assessment period that the city has used typically has been 15 years, and the rate is typically 2% over the bond rate. In 2021, that rate was 3.29%, but we work with our Finance Department to determine what the rate is once we would actually go for bonds. Any assessments would then be paid in 2023 payable taxes. We'll go over the project schedule here quick. If you remember, we ordered the feasibility study last fall. Council approved it in January at the 25th meeting. Tonight we'll hold a public hearing, and if Council still wishes, we would order the project, approve plans, and then allow staff to have Ramsey County go for bids on our behalf. Then sometime in April, Ramsey County would open bids, and Council would enter into a cooperative agreement and authorize Ramsey County to proceed with the project. Construction would begin in May, typically after road restrictions are off, and hope to have that done sometime this fall, shooting for substantial completion in October. And if we move forward, the assessment hearing—so any property that is having that benefit—we would assess that. Typically we do that in September once construction is over and we know the cost that the properties would incur. So holding a public hearing is part of the Chapter 429 process for special assessments to benefiting properties. So this is a the next step in that process. So if Council, once we hold the public hearing this evening, staff would recommend that Council order the improvement or adopt the resolution ordering the improvement, approving the plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids. I'd be happy to answer any questions or recommend that Council open the public hearing. **[08:44] Mayor Dan Steffen:** Thank you, Mr. Kauppi. At this time, we will open it up for public hearing on Item 6a, this resolution. If anybody has anything to say specific to this project, now is your opportunity. [Pause] And seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Council for discussion. Council, what do we want to do? Councilmember Edberg. **[09:12] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kauppi, so when we have done street improvements in the past, we've had some options for assisting homeowners in gaining best rates for driveway repair for—as one example. Now, I'm not suggesting that we actually coordinate, but is there any counsel or support that we can offer that if homeowners in this relatively concentrated area were to desire to contract with the same source of whoever's going to do the digging and connecting, is there any reason for us to think that they might be able to save some nickels that way? **[09:55] Paul Kauppi:** Councilmember Edberg... we always work with the contractors to get the bids. Typically the contractor that would do this type of work is a more heavy construction, bigger equipment. The type of contractor that would typically do the work between the home and that sewer connection is typically more of a plumbing level. But if the contractor that is awarded the contract—we will definitely work with them if they are interested in doing that work. We know of two homeowners for sure, possibly a third, that want to connect immediately. So we know those are out there, we've had conversations with them. So we will definitely open that up once we know who the contractor is. **[10:35] Councilmember Edberg:** So I don't know that we—aside from planting the idea—I'm totally fine with leaving homeowners to make their own individual arrangements. But I have a suspicion that there is a transportation setup and working in an area efficiency that can be gained that if they were to aggregate their projects and have one contractor just go "bing bing bing bing" down the row and then on the other side of the street, I have a suspicion that there might be some savings. So to the extent that we might advise them around that or at least make them aware of that idea, I think that would be useful to all parties concerned. But thank you. **[11:15] Mayor Dan Steffen:** Thank you. Anybody else? **[11:17] Councilmember:** Approve. **[11:18] Mayor Dan Steffen:** I have a motion. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? If not, all those in favor say aye. (Aye.) All those opposed? And the motion carries; the resolution is passed. **[11:32] Mayor Dan Steffen:** Moving on to Item 7: Unfinished business. We have nothing scheduled, and that brings us to Item 8: New business. Resolution opposing the proposed Purple Line (formerly Rush Line) Bus Rapid Transit route. I will get things started and have some opening remarks, and I know many on the Council, if not everyone, has a few items to say. Here's how I'd like to—when I'm done with my comments—how I'd like this to go: I want to start with Ward 1 and just work our way down. It's not to say we can't have an open discussion, but just to keep some order to the process. So when I'm done, I'll throw it to Councilmember Walsh starting with Ward 1, and we'll go from there. So the Council has a resolution before it that says in no uncertain terms to the Met Council that the City of White Bear Lake opposes the Rush Line. So why we bring that today and what are my reasons for putting this on the agenda? It starts fundamentally with as someone who's born and raised in White Bear, what I see White Bear is, and it's got a small-town feel that happens to be really close to St. Paul and accessible to the rest of the metro. But we have a unique flavor in this city and it doesn't feel urbanized; it doesn't have the trappings of big buildings and mass transit—which is not to say that either of those two things are bad, it's just not what White Bear has historically been. And I think that's why a lot of us live here and we like that, and I certainly campaigned on preserving just that. So we start from that, and then when you get into the simple economics of it and the study that was done of ridership rate from the Met Council, I'm just not convinced. I think it was aspirational at best that the ridership rate is going to be anything that approaches justifying a half-a-billion-dollar project and bringing it up to White Bear. And I base that in part on common sense, and I base that largely on just talking to residents—knocking on hundreds of doors during the campaign and fielding emails and calls and going into it objectively just saying, "Hey, is this something you'd use?" without any preconceived notions, without steering anybody. "What do you think of the project?" And it has been overwhelming the number of people that have said not only do I oppose the project, I'll never use it. It's not right for White Bear. It's—it's telling that it has prompted such a visceral reaction from so many people in the community, specifically in the City of White Bear Lake and the surrounding communities. So the box score that I have—within the last 48 hours, I've received dozens of emails and phone calls, and it stands at 36 emails and calls that oppose and seven that are in favor. And I think that certainly underscores what I've observed during the campaign, what I've observed since being elected, and I don't think I'd be doing my job as Mayor if I'm not representing the wishes of those that got me here and those that elected me. So those are the big overarching reasons why I would urge the Council to move this resolution and send a strong message to the Metropolitan Council that the Rush Line just isn't right for White Bear and that we are formally opposing it. So with that, I will open it up for discussion, and I think procedurally if maybe if someone wants to make a motion and a second just so we have it properly before the Council, that would be appropriate at this time. **[15:13] Councilmember:** I move approval. **[15:15] Mayor Dan Steffen:** I have a motion. Do I have a second? **[15:16] Councilmember Hughes:** Second. **[15:17] Mayor Dan Steffen:** I have a motion and a second. I will now open it up for discussion. Let's start with Ward 1 and Councilmember Walsh. **[15:25] Councilmember Walsh:** Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, we've—we've been able to debate this a few times so we don't have to, you know, go on and on, but just a little kind of how we got here today with this resolution. You know, after you were elected Mayor, we just kind of discussed what's the best strategic legislative approach, and this resolution is what we came up with. And I think staff did a really good job writing the resolution, so I'm just kind of go through it as an outline in my remarks. One of the things I thought right away is that the key vote, I think, from the Met Council's perspective and Ramsey County's perspective is the 2017 vote, which is bullet point number four—"Whereas number four." You know, in 2017 when we picked the locally preferred alternative route and mode, I remember speaking at the time in that resolution. I said, "Well, this is fine; we're making a micro-decision here today, but we haven't had a macro discussion on whether we want this project or not in the city." And I kind of objected to the process, if you remember. But that became a key vote and I kind of predicted it as it was happening. And then later on you read newspaper accounts a year later and people in the Met Council and Ramsey County saying, "Well, all the cities along the line have approved it." So, wait a minute—we didn't approve it! Well, they point to this vote—this 2017 approval of the locally preferred alternative route. So one of my ideas early on was why don't we just undo that vote? I mean, it's several years ago now, so that's kind of problematic to undo a vote that old, but that's—that was one idea we had. So this resolution, I think, has some of that effect of undoing that vote, and I think they've unfairly misrepresented that vote because I don't think the Council felt like that was a vote in favor of it. Those that voted for it and those that voted against it were saying this is a route; we were saying it's bus, not rail. And just on the force of the resolution itself, the resolution here states a couple different times that, you know, municipal consent is a thing in Minnesota law—it's required in light rail lines; it's not required in bus rapid transit lines, which we'll make that clear. But the Met Council is required under law to listen to communities and work with communities up and down the line. So, you know, one of my questions is: will they listen? Will they listen to us today as we pass this resolution—it's very strongly worded, assuming it passes. And the other question on that is: will other communities follow our lead? You know, Gem Lake has already taken a very strong stance against the project. White Bear Township—if you listen to a meeting they had a while back—they didn't vote, but they were very skittish about going near this thing. I think if other communities listen and follow our lead, that could have a—in terms of success of the resolution and concerns of "will they listen"—that could amplify our message. The Mayor talked about the small-town feel, and that's been a big part of this discussion from the beginning. I've heard it over and over; I get it, I can feel it, I can sense it. I want to remind people that when we put together our comp plan—our comprehensive plan—that we submit to the Met Council about how White Bear is going to grow and change over the next 10 years, 20 years, we did a survey. We did a community survey in 2017 and one of the questions on the survey was: "Use three words to describe White Bear Lake now and then kind of the same three words to for your hope for the future 20 years from now." And the phrase "small-town feel" scored very high on both of those questions. I remember getting that presentation a week or two before we voted on the original Rush Line vote, and I think I brought that up. It's like: we just heard from the people at White Bear Lake saying small-town feel is a big deal and a big part of our identity, and I feel like we're wrecking it with this train. So I'm kind of reminded of that. Item G—Lake Elmo. We're in a similar situation to Lake Elmo. We want to put that in the resolution; we want to remind Met Council that as they were doing the Gold Line over in on the east metro there, Lake Elmo had a very similar situation. They did a "yes" vote, they had a community-wide discussion and an election, and then they had a "no" vote. Essentially, on that locally preferred alternative route, they reversed that vote and Met Council listened to that and shifted that line over to Woodbury. Now, it's not the same in that it's much more difficult for Met Council to shift the line to another community here—it doesn't really work that way and there's a lake in the way for one thing—but there is some precedent for a city changing its mind and the Met Council listening. Another item: we're at an early enough stage. Accommodating the City Council request—I want to make that clear—we have not submitted our application for this project to the federal government for funding yet. We are still in planning. So reversing course, pausing, getting better ridership, waiting for COVID—all those things are very logical, and the federal money will be there if the project continues forward. We had a resolution on this Council to pause a while back, but we're early enough in the process and I'm glad that's reflected in the resolution. And then just real strong language on the "Therefore be it resolved": in the strongest terms, the Met Council modify the route so it does not enter the jurisdictional boundaries of City of White Bear Lake. I think the Mayor put it well. This is a very one-sided issue. It's not a 50-50 issue; it's an overwhelming majority of the folks in White Bear Lake don't want the project to come north, and I think we should listen to them. We should pass this resolution today. Thank you. **[22:04] Mayor Dan Steffen:** Thank you, Councilmember Walsh. Councilmember Hughes. **[22:08] Councilmember Hughes:** Okay. Typically I've written it down. As a Councilmember, I'm asked to wait to make any final opinion on a matter coming before the Council until we fully heard about the issue and subsequently talked about it as a group, which must happen in public. We had an open meeting on this resolution last week and discussed it; therefore, this is one of the few times I've come with my mind made up and thoughts written down so I don't tangent and run off all over the place, therefore making no sense, which I have a huge potential to do. This is an issue I campaigned on, and this vote is an issue of my integrity. I have two points to make: The strings that come attached to the federal grant for this bus line are like chains attached to a millstone. Secondly, government is run by the people, for the people—not by the government. I'm not against transit; I'm against this plan. To me, the efficiency gained by running 35E as the trunk line and moving more quickly to local routes far outweigh the federal dollars being chased after under this plan. I think the Purple Line is a "strings attached," substandard route. The reason this bus line looks like the way it does is because of a 50% match from the feds of the projected spending. When spending balloons, the percentage falls because the feds won't be paying more—Ramsey County taxpayers will. And in order to get that money, you must have dedicated lanes. We don't have the space for that in downtown White Bear Lake, but everywhere else we must have a dedicated bus line going all the way down 61. The bus also controls the lights. When the bus comes through, the lights will change to move it through the intersection faster, which will frustrate your drive to the grocery store—which you will still have to do because this bus won't take you there. For 500 million dollars, despite the lanes and these lights, it's almost an hour to downtown St. Paul. This is not fast. Those who cannot afford cars or simply want public transportation pay with their time, which is quite elitist. There must be 89 buses per day; this cannot be compromised under the federal grants plan. And finally, it must be on 61, which is what I think is the biggest mistake. I think that this plan should be scrapped and the buses—all 89 of them—should move over to 35E. Rather than making bus stops along 61, we should upgrade the park-and-ride at Vadnais, include a stop before the bus goes past 36, at a park-and-ride near Hugo. Then not only can people go to the Union Depot in St. Paul, but they can also go to Minneapolis, to Medtronic or 3M, to the Rosedale Mall, or to many other useful locations in the metro area—not simply a random walk around Berkeley Road, the hospital, and Union Depot. No one talks about step two of this plan, which is the development of local buses through the neighborhoods to bring people to the second-rate Purple Line. This is not part of the federal grant. How about we build those now and move people to 35E now, and the many more resources and locations for riders to go to? Why wait? 35E is our trunk line. By using 35E we would lose 250 million dollars, but maybe we can simply skip spending 250 million dollars on wrecking 61 for no one to ride to nowhere, and actually move people out of our neighborhoods and onto the buses already flying down 35E and increase that number of riders in an organic way. "Build it and they will come" only works in a fairy tale. This behemoth looks like this because of what will end up being a paltry federal grant when the entire thing is built. So let's skip the grant and build what makes sense instead. This Purple Line is a wonderful example of the government telling its uneducated citizens what is good for them despite their protests. One retired government worker told me last week that people didn't know what was good for them and the educated thinkers behind this plan for the last 20 years know best. Well, maybe—but the city doesn't belong to them. The citizens vote for the Council, and that matters. That matters or democracy doesn't matter. Voting matters, and who we elect and why has consequences. And I am the physical consequence. I'm sitting here because people said "no." Citizens said "no." They've been saying "no" for years and no one has listened. Cheap listening sessions and surveys which don't allow people to simply say "no" don't count. False opportunities dressed up like civic engagement don't count. It's demeaning. And I am the physical "no." So here I am. Not only will I support this resolution, I will work as a Councilmember to thwart this line every chance I get and let the federal government know that the people living here don't want its money or taxpayer money spent on an inadequate route that is being proposed. [Applause] **[27:45] Mayor Dan Steffen:** Councilmember Jones, do you have anything? **[27:48] Councilmember Jones:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think there's a basic misconception of what this line will do. Whether it's on 35E or whether it's on Highway 61, it is not a "quick" transit. I think the facts have been skewed. The joke is "Rush Line"—yeah, it takes an hour. It was to Rush City, not "Rush Line." Many—I think there's been a lot of misinformation, but the question that needs to be answered is: what is the long-term effect of not having the BRT come through White Bear Lake? The city and the entire northeast corridor could be cut off from future development opportunities. The northeast corridor already is at a major disadvantage compared to the other quadrants of jobs, businesses, population, and transportation links. We may well want to be Grant or Lake Elmo if that's what we want to be—you're making that decision today. I don't believe that at the end of the day, an average of five electric buses an hour—don't care how long they are—will ruin White Bear Lake on a state highway that, according to 2019 MNDOT statistics, carries 34,000 vehicles a day. I don't believe that four platforms along Highway 61 and addressing the specific resolution item points—small terminus building area west of 61—will ruin our city and restrict access to businesses. I believe the argument that money will be saved by stopping this project is naive. The federal government already has spent it—we all know it—it's just going to go somewhere else. So I just think it just doesn't apply. But I do find it ironic to use the "save the money" argument opposing the BRT at the same time we as a Council are asking the state for six million dollars for the proposed improvements to the public state building. Both of these projects—they are similar funding types. You can't—you know, the money's already there, it's been spent. I can see how the question of ridership is open for debate; that's understandable. But I will leave that to the yet-to-be-completed federal application process along with the U of M study and the experts to determine that. I will state the bus line would be available to all who live in the White Bear Lake area and not just the residents who would not use it or never use it. I get this as a "build it and they will come" argument—I get it. But if it's never built, they're never going to come, or they will just buy a car—and don't we already have parking problems according to the downtowners? I'm not seeing the risk factors stated in the resolution of having negative effects on the City of White Bear Lake—keywords stated in the resolution. I'm not seeing any of the resolution points being supported with data or facts, just sentiments. The areas of concerns listed in the resolution do not add up to take the drastic step of cutting one off—at least in the planning stage—cutting one avenue off to White Bear Lake from the rest of the metro area. Not providing a consistent hourly form of public transportation to our city. But these are concerns in that resolution from our residents, and if nothing else, they have been heard, and I would hope that Met Council will address and try to rectify those concerns and continue forward with the application process. I do wonder what the pros and cons that were debated over the last 150 years regarding transportation decisions in White Bear Lake. What if the town of White Bear had rejected the railroad in 1868? What would it even be—Minnesota's first resort town? In the early 1900s, the Village of White Bear Lake rejected the streetcar line. What if the Village of White Bear Lake had rejected the route of US-61 in 1921? Very few cars were on the road at that time and they were expensive and unaffordable. What if the city would have rejected 35E and 694 in 1970? In closing, I was provided a few quotes that I think are appropriate. Edmund Burke, an Anglo-Irish statesman, economist, and philosopher in the late 1700s, said: "Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." George Latimer said: "Every once in a while you have to look at the cost versus the price." And what I found particularly interesting in a quote from an excerpt from a letter that former Mayor Harry Mayers provided to appointed planning commissioners, one was by H.W.S. Cleveland, a primary advocate in the 1880s of forming and shaping the Minneapolis park system: "If you have faith in the future greatness of your city, do not shrink from securing while you may such areas as will be adequate to the wants of such a city. Do not be appalled at the thought of appropriating lands which seem now too costly, simply because they are far out of proportion to your present wants. Look forward for a century and think what their wants they will have. Wealth enough to purchase all that money can buy, but all that wealth cannot purchase the last opportunity." This quote is directly from Harry Mayers in that letter: "Cities should exist as efficient instruments providing the greatest possible living conditions for the inhabitants and visitors. Without a great plan—one that is steadfastly held as the guide for the city—efficiency is lost, opportunity is lost, and dreams for what could be are never realized." The Rush Line has been in the planning stage, folks, since 1999. It has been part of the last two 10-year comprehensive plans—the last one unanimously approved by this City Council just last June. I don't know where anybody—I don't remember somebody saying we need to take this chunk out; it was in there. I don't know why you didn't say anything; it was in there. As a City Council, we need to plan for today and the future, and we need to do this for all of our residents. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. **[34:10] Mayor Dan Steffen:** Thank you, Councilmember Jones. Councilmember Edberg. **[34:15] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the resolution accurately states that our community is narrowly divided on this topic, and I believe that that's true. Previous votes on this subject have been 3-2 in support, and tonight I have a suspicion it's going to be the other way. Elections have consequences; that's entirely as it should be. Every person who sits and casts a vote tonight has earned their seat fair and square, and so those voices will be heard. I'm going to oppose the resolution. First of all, I do not agree with the resolution's assertions about the detrimental impacts on the City of White Bear Lake. I would like to point out at least one obvious thing: Highway 61 is a state highway. It carries tens of thousands of vehicles a day. To add another X number of buses is inconsequential. For every one bus, there's at least 200 other vehicles moving on that same roadway. This is not going to decrease the walkability of our city; it's not going to massively increase the amount of traffic, and I'll say a little bit more about that in a moment. The buses are electric buses—you have to make noise so that they can be heard. If you've ever tried to step off the curb in front of a Prius, think about that—that's what these things do. We do not have the smell of diesel; we don't have the sound of buses as has been asserted. Not an issue. There is no impact to public safety. I've asked our Police Chief three different times: "Will approval of BRT affect the livability, the safety, the security of our community and all of its stops?" "No." Consistently that response: "No." So none of the assertions that are made in the resolution have data; none of them have support of logic, in my opinion. I want to talk about a larger opinion. [Refers to map] Mr. Kauppi, so this is a map of the metro system. If you want to take a look, the Purple Line is the one up in the far right corner that goes north. The next one that goes north is I-35W. The one that runs east-west—that little yellow thing down there—is I-94. By saying "no" to the Rush Line, we are cutting ourselves off and the entire northeast metro from the only scheduled, planned component of the metro area. And we will regret that because what nobody is talking about is that in the next 20 years, we're adding just under a million—about 800,000 to 900,000—more people to the metro area. And of those, tens of thousands are projected to live in places like Hugo and Lino Lakes north of us on I-35. To concentrate all of our chips, as some would want to suggest, on one roadway creates a risk that if something ever happened on that roadway, we are completely cut off, and that is unwise. The ability for us to connect in my mind is rooted in a rejection of the idea of "Stop the Rush Line." It's wrong framing, wrong thinking. I want to close by noting that the authority for this decision by statute is not ours. I'm totally fine with the idea that this Council can speak and represent itself to other bodies of government, including the Met Council. I actually trust that the Council will do its work and that federal agencies will evaluate any potential future application when it's made. I expect them to do their job, but it is not our job to make these decisions for this part of this inter-community communications transportation system. So I'm going to oppose the resolution. Thank you. **[38:12] Mayor Dan Steffen:** Thank you, Councilmember Edberg. Councilmember Engstran, do you have anything to add? **[38:18] Councilmember Engstran:** Oh sure. I know I'm pretty much the swing vote up here. I am against the bus line; I do not want it. However, there's something about this resolution that doesn't sit well with me. I'm not sure what it is, and I can't support it. I think the bus should be on 35. The biggest part of this resolution that I don't like is that it says it will impact the walkability of our area, and I—there's no way you could tell that. And if they improve some of the intersections, it'll make it easier to walk in this area. I cannot support this resolution. And if I were to support this resolution, it would just be strictly Item J—is what all the resolutions should say. It should just say that the City Council understands the great deal of work that went into it, the project and the route, nothing in the resolution intends to criticize anybody, and that most of our constituents don't want this. That should be the resolution, period. All this other stuff... something sits wrong with me on it. And actually, I had somebody else read it with me to give their opinion, and as soon as they read it and put it down, they asked me, "Who's the pompous ass that wrote it?" And [Music] I'm like, "That might be what's wrong." I don't know. There's some wrong resolution. I can't vote for it though. **[39:55] Councilmember Walsh:** Well, Representative Engstran, is—so Item J is what's left in your mind? I mean, we're certainly amenable to amendment if you wanted to amend the resolution. **[40:10] Councilmember Engstran:** All this resolution should say is that this City Council agrees that most of our constituents don't want it. I'll do it. But the rest of this other stuff that's in here... something about this resolution, I can't—I can't put my finger on it. And although like I said, my friend who read it might have put the finger on it, but that was not my feeling—but that was his reaction was to it when he read it and he doesn't live here in the city. **[40:40] Councilmember Walsh:** Well, Item J is fine by itself, but it might not have much—it might not do much. **[40:48] Councilmember Engstran:** This might not do much. Well, like we've all said before, we don't have an answer. The Met Council can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants. So this really has no feet anyway. I think maybe that's the other part of the problem that I have with the resolution: it doesn't have any feet. The Met Council will do what they want when they want. Okay? They've heard the talks out here with the people that don't want it; they're still pushing for it. I don't want it either. I don't want the bus here either. I think it should be on 35 also. Always have. **[41:25] Councilmember Walsh:** Well, Mr. Mayor, we've talked about the limitations of the resolution. We've talked about the limitations of our power in the law without municipal consent required. You know, I don't know that I would say that a "pompous ass" wrote the resolution. I mean, you've heard us talk about a lot of people in the community have been saying these things—these are things that we've heard from the community over and over. I don't like the wording, the language—we can change that—but this does reflect a lot of feedback. I'm sorry we didn't get the language right. I mean, Item J without a "Therefore be it resolved," without telling the Met Council, without being stronger—I don't know if that's enough. I'm inclined to amend it down to that, though. I'm inclined to say, "All right, White Bear Lake says..." [To Engstran] I got it, I got it. I'm just trying to get to the good stuff—expressing desires supported by large numbers of constituents to not have White Bear Lake be part of the BRT route. I mean, that is the essence of the resolution. I mean, if that's what you're willing to vote for today, I'm inclined to amend it down to that. I'm not sure what that means—in terms of the writing of a resolution, it becomes a very short resolution—but it still says the same thing: that the City Council is expressing the desire supported by a large number of resident constituents to not have White Bear Lake be part of the BRT route. It may have the same effect of "we strongly tell the Met Council not to bring the line into the jurisdiction of the White Bear Lake city." I think I'll make that amendment, Mr. Mayor. **[43:08] Mayor Dan Steffen:** Wait, Councilmember Walsh, if you don't mind if I address a couple of things. So there's a little bit to unpack there. So let's start with the end of my first City Council meeting where I placed a high priority on maintaining decorum and respect. So while I respect your opinions, the verbiage "it was written by a pompous ass" has no place on this Council. The resolution was written by an attorney, and it was reviewed by another attorney because—as we acknowledged in one of the preliminary paragraphs—this Rush Line does not require municipal consent. So all we have is rhetoric, verbiage, and sending a strong message. That's all we have. The Met Council can ram this down our throats if they'd like, whether we pass this as you want to amend it or pass it as it sits right now. So I am open to amending it, but if we simply pass a resolution that only has Item J, that truly has no "teeth," because each of these paragraphs are specifically addressed and designed to highlight what I've heard and what other Councilmembers have heard from the community. I think it's important—this is not an exercise in as few words as possible. We don't have to write a novel of a resolution, but these bullet points were systematically thought out and I think accomplishes it. If I can't sell you on that, then I can't sell you on that. But the overarching issue here is a community that does not want a Rush Line. So whether you or your friend doesn't like the verbiage of it, the goal is what matters. So I would encourage you to not lose sight of that end goal based on some of this language. You don't have to love it all, but you have to ask yourself: does it accomplish the goal of telling the Met Council we do not want Rush Line in White Bear? And I would submit to you that it does. Maybe there are different ways to do it, and if you want to make a motion to simply make it "J only," I don't think that quite gets us home. I think it needs more. But that's what this dais is for; let's have a discussion. Does anyone else have anything to add? **[45:25] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just as kind of a point of process, the resolution portion of what we have in our hands is on the back page. It's not Item J. J is one of the "whereases." So we should at least pay attention to which part of the document we're taking a look at whenever a motion comes forth, so whatever that happens to look like. I'd also ask that we have consistent decorum in all aspects of our meeting, which includes audience engagement. Thank you. **[46:00] Councilmember Walsh:** I'm confused, Councilmember Edberg. The "whereases" aren't part of the resolution? I'm saying that—is my confusion—massive confusion—is: are we using "Whereas J" as the new summary resolution, or on the back page we have "Now therefore be resolved" and there's where now the impact of the resolution sits? So which one—which pieces of this are we going to substitute, play with, whatever? And just clarity. **[46:30] Mayor Dan Steffen:** Well, strictly speaking as a matter of process, we have a motion and a second on the resolution as it stands right now, so we can have a vote on that. **[46:40] Councilmember Walsh:** Or we could move to table it and we could work on better language that fits something that Representative Engstran could vote for, because clearly she doesn't like the wording and the tone. Those are things that can be changed as long as the result is the same. So maybe that's our fault for not collaborating enough. So I think I'll do that. I'd rather have a motion to table the resolution. I'll table it definitely just to the next meeting because we can't—we can't spend too much time on this. So I would say table it to our next meeting. Table the resolution. Do I have... **[47:20] Councilmember Edberg:** Point of order: we have to vote on the resolution. We have a first and a second. **[47:25] Councilmember Walsh:** Well no, I'm moving to table. That's a higher motion. **[47:28] Mayor Dan Steffen:** I think we're going to ask our City Attorney to help us with the Robert's Rules of Order. **[47:33] City Attorney:** Mr. Mayor and Council, I believe it would be appropriate to entertain a motion to table definitely as it was stated. I believe it is appropriate when another motion is on the floor. So if a second is made to this motion to table, then it would be appropriate for the Council to act on it. **[47:55] Mayor Dan Steffen:** So to clarify: we have a motion. If we have a second, we vote on it as a Council, and if the motion to table approves, that's the outcome. Okay, so I have a motion to table the resolution. **[48:10] Councilmember Edberg:** I actually would prefer that we take action. This thing has been festering for months. One way or another—and I can count noses, I get where things sit, and I'm fine with that—I'd prefer that we actually take some action. But Mr. Walsh has placed a motion, and if we need it, I think we need a second and discussion on that in order to carry this much farther. **[48:38] Councilmember:** Second. **[48:39] Mayor Dan Steffen:** I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? If not, we'll have a vote. I'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll. **[48:48] City Clerk:** Councilmembers, this is the motion to table the resolution. Edberg? (No.) Walsh? (Yes.) Jones? (No.) Hughes? (Yes.) Engstran? (Yes.) **[49:05] Mayor Dan Steffen:** The motion carries, and we will table this resolution to be addressed, I believe, at our next Council meeting. Moving on to Item 9: Discussion. We have nothing scheduled. Moving on to Item 10: Communication from the City Manager. Ms. Crawford. **[49:25] Lindsey Crawford (City Manager):** Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to remind the Council that the Charter Commission will hold a redistricting public hearing on March 7th at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers here. You are invited should you wish to attend. And that is all I have for tonight. Thank you. **[49:42] Mayor Dan Steffen:** Are there any questions or comments from Ms. Crawford at this time? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. **[49:50] Councilmember:** I'll move. **[49:51] Councilmember:** Second. **[49:52] Mayor Dan Steffen:** All those in favor say aye. (Aye.) We're adjourned. Thank you.