1. Evan Dale
Polsci 389
Professor Richard Hall
15 April 2016
Lobbying on the Bottineau Light Rail Extension
“We need mass transit for the future.” Golden Valley city councilwoman
Joanie Clausen said, referring to her city’s approval of a $1 billion public rail
extension. The Light Rail Train (LRT) is a growing public transit system, budding out
of downtown Minneapolis in recent years to incorporate St. Paul, the MSP
International Airport, the Mall of America, and now, a growing number of suburbs.
Starting in 2010, the Metropolitan Council, an inter-county governing body which
oversees the LRT, and Hennepin County, which houses Minneapolis and its
surrounding cities, started a process of expanding the LRT again in order to
accommodate residents in its Northwest suburbs, including the city of Golden
Valley. Over the next four years, the Met Council and Hennepin County created
detailed plans for this new addition, called the Blue Line, or Bottineau, extension,
and gained approval of three of the four suburbs involved. However, despite the
support of the Bottineau in surrounding cities, Golden Valley voted the plan down
on June 19th, 2012 on a 3-2 City Council vote. Over the six months following the
city’s denial of the LRT’s Bottineau extension, support on both sides swelled as
Hennepin County pushed another vote. On December 18th, 2012, a second vote was
taken, this time resulting in a 3-2 approval of the plan. What the city saw during this
six-month window was a grassroots push on both sides, formally and informally,

2. pitting neighborhood residents against local trade unions. Golden Valley’s decision
to approve the Bottineau LRT extension was the result of two grassroots advocacy
movements, a successful instance of neighborhood collective action, the role of
revolving door lobbyists in the City Council, and the influence of Hennepin County.
Golden Valley is Minneapolis’s most unique Northwest suburb. Bordering
both North Minneapolis, the state’s poorest area, and Plymouth, one of the state’s
most affluent areas, it plays an interesting buffer between these two cities. One
important aspect of this buffer is Theodore Wirth Park, an expansive park area that
lies right on the Minneapolis-Golden Valley border. This park is fundamental to the
city of Golden Valley, shielding off Minneapolis’s big city feel from Golden Valley’s
quaint neighborhoods. These neighborhoods bordering Theodore Wirth feel the
park is crucial to both the identity of their small community, as well as Golden Valley
as a whole. When Hennepin County released the plans for the Bottineau LRT
extension, it was discovered that this plan would run up the GV-Minneapolis border,
cutting right through the heart of Theodore Wirth. (Harris) This proposal caused
much concern with the neighbors and advocates of the park. Making their concerns
heard, these neighbors were successful in denying the extension plan in the June
19th vote. However, as the issue was brought up again, they remobilized to protect
their interests.
Resident Grassroots Advocacy
This movement by Golden Valley residents is a unique example of successful
collective action in grassroots advocacy. The impact of the potential Bottineau

3. extension was seen as an imminent threat to these residents’ property and
neighborhood. In any interest group, even one as informal as this group of
neighbors, there are always problems with collective action, especially that of free
riding on the advocacy of others. But because this interest group was so natural and
was not formally organized, coupled with their perception that the threat of the LRT
would be so high to them and their area, these residents were prone to organize and
act. It is not clear the totality of their member base or entirety of the tactics they
used, but the group lobbied members of the Golden Valley City Council in a couple
clear ways. The first was their canvasing operation, in which they placed fliers on
hundreds of car windshields and neighbors’ doors. One member of the Council I
interviewed noted this process, saying he received numerous fliers from concerned
residents, as well as from those trying to inform him of the group’s action. The
purpose of these fliers was two things: to firstly mobilize residents to contact their
City Council members, and secondly to get people to a special City Council hearing
regarding the Bottineau extension on November 28th, 2012.
The strength of this informal group of residents was influential in the
discourse of the LRT issue. Outside of their canvasing operation, the manpower of
this movement was initially shown by the high attendance of residents at the City
Council hearing on November 28th. According to Minnesota Public Radio, who
attended the meeting, more than 150 residents showed up to speak in opposition to
the project, with just a few handfuls speaking in support. (“Golden Valley
Wrestles…”) Although the speakers spoke on different issues, from noise concerns
to the health of Theodore Wirth to simple frustration with the City Council, the

4. showing at the this public hearing solidified the group and their grievances as a
major player in the discussion.
Union and Trade Association Advocacy
On the other side of the fight was a different type of grassroots advocacy, one
with a different style and different tactics. This movement was lead by union and
trade groups, which play a large role in both Minnesota and Golden Valley
economics and politics. Minnesota is home to the most Fortune 500 companies per
capita, such as 3M, Target, and United Health, all which produce large swaths of
organized labor. (“Fortune 500…”) In Golden Valley, the fair business climate has
attracted numerous businesses, such as General Mills and Pentair, to its community,
bringing thousands of jobs with them. This has resulted in strong and organized
unions and trade associations within the political sphere. Speaking with a lobbyist
for the Minneapolis Building Trades Association, he stated that their organization’s
advocacy tactics were an attempt to try to mobilize this base of union support,
hoping to get their members to work on the construction of the proposed extension
once it was approved.
This interest group went about their advocacy in a different way. Without the
need to recruit people to their cause, these trade associations tapped their large
membership base, mobilizing workers to contact their City Council members to
express their concerns via phone or email. This approach played a significant role
lobbying the council, noted specifically by a Councilmember during our interview.
This member voted no on the project in the June 19th vote, and soon after started

5. receiving dozens of calls from workers supporting the project. “Usually people that
don’t want it have the loudest voices!” this Councilmember said in our interview.
Another council member also spoke in our interview of their awareness of local
union members undertaking an organized effort to call council members, and also
said a third council member approached him about the large of amount of phone
calls they were also getting. In Golden Valley, a city with a strong labor presence,
this kind of reaction to a City Council vote carries weight among the council’s
members.
The interest group also made an attempt to counter the strong showing of
residential support at the special City Council hearing on the extension, but using
expertise instead of manpower. Both Andy Snope, a representative for the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Minneapolis Building
Trades Council, and the lobbyist interviewed for this project spoke to the crowd and
City Council. During their speaking times, both referenced a larger poll conducted by
the AFL-CIO to measure Golden Valley’s public opinion on the Bottineau extension
into the city, which concluded that 57% of residents supported the project. This poll
was another tactic used to help this interest group persuade City Council members,
attempting to show that they, the labor groups, represented the majority of Golden
Valley residents’ opinions, instead of the 150 angry residents standing in front of
them. (“Golden Valley Council…”)
Another important factor is these organization’s ties with City Council
members. Every Councilmember I interviewed was connected with unions or trade

6. associations either politically or privately, representing the organizations interests
or doing professional business with the groups.
Revolving Door
As a result of these connections, the role of lobbyists and the revolving door
are immensely important in Golden Valley politics, both in this case and beyond.
Although none of the council members during this six-month process in 2012 were
once formal lobbyists of Golden Valley, the nature of the council allows for personal
business and other economic interests to potentially conflict with the duties of the
council. A chair on the Golden Valley City Council is not a full time job; all of its
members have outside, professional jobs in which they make their living. Because of
this, professions with large political networks in Golden Valley, like the IBEW or the
Minnesota Building Trades Council, find success in electing individuals with
professional ties to the Golden Valley City Council, influencing decision-making by
shaping the makeup of the council. There are three cases both during or directly
after the Bottineau extension vote that display this internal influence of the council.
The first example is Mayor Shep Harris, who works professionally as a
lobbyist for the law firm Fredrikson & Byron. (“Shepard M. Harris”) Although he did
not represent any of the interest groups directly involved in the Bottineau extension
debate, his work representing other trade associations and groups play a major role
in his professional interest. According to the Lobbyist Registration list compiled by
the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, one of Harris’s
clients, Foster, Jacobs, and Johnson, Inc., is a government and municipal construction

7. firm that has been awarded numerous contracts from the cities across Minnesota
for public projects, a similar company to the organizations that will work on the
Bottineau extension. (MCFPDB) This potential conflict is not unbeknownst to the
Golden Valley community either, as it was made a campaign issue by Mr. Harris’s
challenger in the 2015 mayor race. “I am concerned that as paid lobbyist, the
current mayor can have a conflict of interest as a voting member of the council
(which occurred). [Sic]” Candidate Marti Micks stated in an interview with the Sun
Post, a local newspaper, pointing to disagreements with Harris on the Bottineau
extension process. (“Two vie…”) Ms. Micks also argued that Harris was initially
elected by outside money, citing Harris’s 2011 campaign that raised an enormous
$24 thousand on his way to steamrolling the incumbent Linda Loomis. (“Golden
Valley mayoral…”) Although financial records of Harris’s 2011 campaign are no
longer public, based on financial reports from other candidates as well as his own in
2015, there is little doubt that interest groups’ direct contributions were a part of
his 2011 campaign haul. (“Candidate Financial Reports”)
The second example is that of Steve Schmidgall, who although was not on the
council at the time of this December 18th 2012 vote, is a great example of the power
of the construction and union interests in Golden Valley. On January 8th, 2013,
Councilman Mike Freiberg stepped down from his seat to be sworn in as the
Minnesota House Representative for Golden Valley’s 45B district. To replace
Freiberg, the City Council announced on December 19th, just one day after the
Bottineau vote, that they were appointing former Planning Commissioner Steve
Schmidgall, a construction industry professional. (“Golden Valley City Council…”)

8. When Schmidgall took his seat, he had worked for over 30 years in the private
construction field, including work designing and constructing part of the General
Mills Headquarters located in Golden Valley. While on the Council, Schmidgall has
focused vehemently on his professional interests, stating on his campaign website
that his top issue going forward is the development of the Bottineau extension,
resting atop the long list of construction and development projects. His campaign
has also been funded by direct contributions from the IBEW and MN Building and
Trades Council, winning in reelection in 2013 while running side by side with IBEW
executive Andy Snope who also won a seat. (“Schmidgall for…”) Like Harris, this
professional arrangement has potentially created some conflicts of interest between
his professional and political interests.
Andy Snope is the third example of the revolving door in Golden Valley.
Before joining the Council in 2013, Snope served as representative for the IBEW for
16 years, later being promoted post-election to the position of Political and
Legislative Director. (Snope) This work also lists him as a lobbyist in the Minnesota
Lobbyist Registration list, stating that he lobbies at both the State and Metropolitan
level for the IBEW’s interests. More, Snope directly lobbied the Council in the
December 18th, 2012 Bottineau extension decision. In the minutes of the November
28th City Council hearing, Snope is referenced speaking to the council and the crowd
in support of the extension. (“Special Meeting of the City Council”) The Sun Post also
cited his appearance that the hearing, where he was referenced as speaking on
behalf of the Minnesota Building Trades Council. One of the council members I
interviewed stated that Snope contacted her to advocate for the project and asking

9. her to vote yes on the pending vote. This council member also stated that they
played a part in getting Snope to run for a Council seat in 2013, which he won firmly
with union backing.
As the Bottineau project continues to move forward, Snope now sits on the
Met Council-sanctioned Corridor Management Committee, which advises the council
on “all issues related to the design and construction” of the Bottineau extension.
This committee calculates the route’s price tag, which the union members Snope
represents will be receiving part of, putting him in a place to shape the details of the
project’s construction and influence its direction potentially to Snope’s professional
benefit. (“Met Council Approves…”) Even more than Harris or Schmidgall, this
conflict over political and professional interests is notable in Snope’s actions on the
Council.
Illustrated by the examples listed, the revolving door for lobbyists and
employees of unions, trade associations, and construction firms is powerful in the
Golden Valley political sphere. With the backing of these formal political networks,
union representatives can be propelled into positions of power in order to
potentially help benefit their professional organization. This process has helped
favorably shape the Council for many of these groups, no doubt playing a role in the
December 28th vote to approve the Bottineau extension into Golden Valley, as well
as in its political fallout in the following election and Council actions.
Influence of Hennepin County

10. There was one other important force in the approval of the Bottineau
extension by the Golden Valley City Council in 2012, which was that of the role of
Hennepin County. What is interesting is that Hennepin County did not need Golden
Valley’s approval to build the Bottineau extension, as the County could have worked
directly with the existing freight rail organization to push it through. However, the
County wanted the city’s approval in order to strengthen their application for
Federal funding from the Federal Transit Administration. The FTA did approve the
application in 2014 and agreed to pay 49% of the Bottineau extension, covering
approximately $720 million of the $1.468 billion project. (Metro Transit) One
councilmember I spoke to explicitly said that this amount of Federal funding would
not have been approved without unanimous consent from the surrounding suburbs,
making Golden Valley’s approval so important.
Once it became clear that Golden Valley was not going to easily approve the
project, Hennepin County initially took a coercive stance to try to gain the city’s
approval of the project. Every interview I conducted, either with Golden Valley City
Council members or lobbyists, noted the county’s tough determination in gaining
approval. When Golden Valley initially voted the measure down in June of 2012,
Hennepin County began to see Golden Valley as a hindrance to their planned project,
and started an attempt to coerce the City Council, as one council member noted.
“They [Hennepin County] kind of made it clear ‘Golden Valley, don’t ask Hennepin
Country for anything [after voting down approval].’” This council member also
added that there was talk from Golden Valley staff about the city being somehow
“punished” if they did not approve the project. “I think that was a way to coerce us

11. into approving it.” This council member also said that the County leaned on Mayor
Shep Harris to obtain the approval for them. “Our mayor was accused by [Mike]
Opat (one of two Hennepin County representatives on the Counties Transit
Improvement Board, another group that oversees the extension) for not pushing it
[the vote] hard enough...”
Another council member noted that there was the potential of an exchange
with Hennepin County, one in which the County would take over Golden Valley’s
911 dispatch system in exchange for approval of the Bottineau extension by the City
Council. According to this council member interview, corroborated with the local
online news source the Edina Patch, Joanie Clausen, whose vote swung from no to
yes to approve the extension, told Hennepin County at a joint work session that she
would vote yes on the Bottineau project if the County took over their dispatch
system. The potential switch to Hennepin County for dispatch services would save
the city over $150 thousand, according to Mayor Harris, making it a great financial
opportunity for the city. (Engler) Although there is no documentation of an
agreement, just one week before the approval of the Bottineau extension, the
Hennepin County Board approved the takeover of Golden Valley’s dispatch system,
with Counties Transit Improvement Board member Mike Opat voting in favor.
(Zillmer) This shows a clear exchange relationship between Hennepin County, the
lobbyist, and Golden Valley, the legislator/legislative body, in which the lobbyist’s
contribution, in this case the dispatch center, directly impacted the roll call vote for
the project.

12. The tactics used by Hennepin County, whether it be the hardline, coercive
stance against Golden Valley or their ability to form an exchange relationship that
used their resources to gain approval, proved to be influential in Golden Valley’s
ultimate approval of the Bottineau extension. The County’s ability to use a variety of
tactics and exploit leverage must be equally intertwined with the role of grassroots
lobbying and the role of the revolving door in the final Bottineau approval by the
City Council.
Finally, on December 18th, 2012, the Golden Valley City Council voted 3-2 to
approve the Bottineau extension into their city. Yet, this vote was neither the
beginning nor the end to the fight surrounding the Light Rail Train in this suburb of
Minneapolis. What Golden Valley saw during the six-months leading up to this 3-2
vote was a diverse advocacy effort, mixing concerned neighbors with the power of
state unions and Hennepin County, set upon a political base of revolving door
politicians. From this mixture came a completely unique and interesting example of
lobbying and political advocacy at work. Yet, this one vote and its surrounding
events is just the tip of larger icebergs, both in Golden Valley politics as well as the
issue of Bottineau extension moving forward. As plans are finalized and the
extension is built, we will see more lobbying and advocacy from both big unions and
local residents all along the length of this track. Although the project is just
beginning, the Bottineau extension has already found its unique place in Golden
Valley political history.

13. Appendix
Bibliography
Because many of these sources have the same author, these internal citations
have been written based off the title of the source
Ex. Palmersheim’s "Golden Valley Council to Vote on Bottineau Support
Resolution Dec. 18” = (“Golden Valley Council…”)
"Candidate Financial Reports." City of Golden Valley. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/elections/candidate-financial-
reports.php>.
City of Golden Valley. City Council. Regular Meeting of the City Council. By Judy Nally.
12/18 ed. Golden Valley: n.p., 2012. Minutes of the Golden Valley City
Council. Goldenvalleymn.gov. 18 Dec. 2012. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
City of Golden Valley. City Council. Regular Meeting of the City Council. Comp. Judy
Nally. 6/19 ed. Golden Valley: n.p., 2012. Minutes of the Golden Valley City
Council. Goldenvalleymn.gov. City of Golden Valley, 19 June 2012. Web. 11
Apr. 2016.
City of Golden Valley. City Council. Special Meeting of the City Council. By Judy Nally.
11/28 ed. Golden Valley: n.p., 2012. Minutes of the Golden Valley City
Council. Goldenvalleymn.gov. 28 Nov. 2012. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
City of Golden Valley. "Golden Valley City Council Appoints Steven Schmidgall To
Vacant Council Seat." City of Golden Valley. N.p., 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 11 Apr.
2016.

14. <http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/newsarchive/index.php/2012/12/19/gol
den-valley-city-council-appoints-steven-schmidgall-to-vacant-council-seat/>.
Engler, Valerie. "Golden Valley Terminating Edina Dispatch Services in 2014." Edina,
MN Patch. N.p., 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
<http://patch.com/minnesota/edina/golden-valley-terminating-edina-
dispatch-services-in-2014>.
"Fortune 500 Companies in Minnesota." Minnesota.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.
<http://mn.gov/deed/business/locating-minnesota/companies-
employers/fortune500.jsp>.
Harris, Marlys. "Bottineau LRT: Maybe We Don't Have the Right Route Yet."
MinnPost. N.p., 26 June 2012. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.
<https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2012/06/bottineau-lrt-maybe-we-
dont-have-right-route-yet>.
MCFPDB. "List of Lobbyist/Association with Lobbying Subjects." Minnesota
Campaign Finance and Pubic Disclosure Board. N.p., 15 Mar. 2016. Web. 14
Apr. 2016. <http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/lobby/lobbysub.html>.
"Met Council Approves Updated METRO Blue Line Plans; Next Step Is Municipal
Consent." City of Golden Valley. N.p., 10 Dec. 2015. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/newsarchive/index.php/2015/12/10/me
t-council-approves-updated-metro-blue-line-plans-next-step-is-municipal-
consent/>.
Metro Transit. "METRO Blue Line Extension Fact Sheet." Metropolitan Council. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

15. <http://www.metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Projects/Current-
Projects/METRO-Blue-Line-Extension/Publications-And-Resources/Project-
Facts/BLRT-Project-Facts.aspx>.
Metropolitan Council. "Metropolitan Council Committee Report No. 2014-228."
Metrocouncil.org. N.p., 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.metrocouncil.org/Council-
Meetings/Committees/Metropolitan-Council/2014/9-24-
14/0924_2014_228.aspx>.
Palmersheim, Jay. "Golden Valley Council to Vote on Bottineau Support Resolution
Dec. 18." SunPost. N.p., 8 Dec. 2016. Web. 7 Apr. 2016.
<http://post.mnsun.com/2012/12/08/golden-valley-council-to-vote-on-
bottineau-support-resolution-dec-18/>.
Palmersheim, Jay. "Meet Golden Valley’s Newest Council Member: Steve Schmidgall."
SunPost. N.p., 8 Jan. 2013. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
<http://post.mnsun.com/2013/01/08/meet-golden-valleys-newest-council-
member-steve-schmidgall/>.
Prather, Shannon. "Met Council Approves Updated $1.5B Plan for Bottineau Blue
Line Extension." Star Tribune. N.p., 9 Dec. 2015. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.startribune.com/met-council-approves-updated-1-5b-plan-
for-bottineau-blue-line-extension/361356461/>.
Purcell, Gina. "Golden Valley Mayoral Candidates Address Hot Topics." Sun Post. N.p.,
20 Oct. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.

16. <http://post.mnsun.com/2015/10/20/golden-valley-mayoral-candidates-
address-hot-topics/>.
Purcell, Gina. "Golden Valley Residents Panic at Light Rail Station Concepts." Sun
Post. N.p., 2 Dec. 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.
Purcell, Gina. "Two Vie for Golden Valley Mayoral Seat." SunPost. N.p., 25 Oct. 2015.
Web. 10 Apr. 2016. <http://post.mnsun.com/2015/10/25/two-vie-for-
golden-valley-mayoral-seat/>.
"Schmidgall for Golden Valley's Future Campaign Financial Report." Golden Valley
Campaign Financial Reports (2013): n. pag. City of Golden Valley. 1 Dec. 2015.
Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.goldenvalleymn.gov/elections/pdf/candidate-financial-
reports/Schmidgall%20October%2022%20to%20December%201,%20201
5%20Financial%20Report.pdf>.
Sepic, Matt, and Laura Yuen. "Golden Valley Approves Fourth Light-rail Route."
MPRnews. N.p., 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/12/18/regional/golden-valley-
considers-approval-of-bottineau-rail-route>.
"Shepard M. Harris." Fredrikson and Byron. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.fredlaw.com/our_people/shepard_m_harris/>.
Snope, Andrew. "Andrew Snope." LinkedIn. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-snope-
1b908618?authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=8w32&locale=en_US&src
hid=3993955161460339750166&srchindex=1&srchtotal=1&trk=vsrp_peopl

17. e_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A3993955161460339750166%2CVS
RPtargetId%3A59896221%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary%2CVSRPnm%3Atrue
%2CauthType%3ANAME_SEARCH>.
Steve Schmidgall for Golden Valley City Council. "I Support..." Steve Schmidgall for
Golden Valley City Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.steve4gv.org/positions>.
Yuen, Laura. "Golden Valley Wrestles with Opposition to Bottineau Light Rail."
MPRnews. N.p., 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/11/29/business/golden-valley-
bottineau-light-rail>.
Zillmer, Katy. "County Board Approves Builder, Golden Valley Dispatch at New 911
Center." Sun Post. N.p., 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
<http://post.mnsun.com/2012/12/17/county-board-approves-builder-
golden-valley-dispatch-at-new-911-center/>.

18. Minnesota Building Trades Council Lobbyist Interview Transcript
Lobbyist = L
Evan = E
E: Ok so when the light rail extension was first proposed was your organization
initially supportive of the extension?
L: Generally we support anything that puts our members to work.
E: Ok. Were there any specific provisions that you wanted in the extension and if so
did the final extension plan, or what's been proposed so far, include them?
L: Usually we like to see prevailing wage or project labor agreements, that’s what we
push for. So things that have prevailing wage have federal money, so there’s never a
question about having that. We’d like to have a project labor agreement on it but I
don’t know if they’ve made a decision on that yet.
E: What was your specific focus on? You said you were working with the cities
mainly?
L: Yeah. When it was first proposed, when they selected the route through the
corridor, they had to get the cities to approve it. There was a problem with the
Golden Valley City Council. They had some concerns so we worked with them to
make sure that they were able to pass it. And one of our members got elected to the
City Council there, and it came around a second time for municipal consent and it
passed unanimously, so.
E: Did you spend much time lobbying the undecided Golden Valley council
members?
L: Yeah, I made some calls to them and got our membership to call them and to talk
to them about it. Definitely made sure that they understood where we were coming
from.
E: You said helped elect one of your allies to the council. Did he play a role in
lobbying those undecided Council members?
L: Yes.
E: Did your organization do any grassroots organizing on the issue?
L: Yea, we talked to our members and asked them to call their City Council members.
And then we worked a little bit with Transit for Livable Communities and some
other organizations to get some calls.

19. E: So how is the Minneapolis Building and Construction Trades funded? Is it a union
payment?
L: Union dues.
E: Union dues? Ok. What role if any, do you know of or did you play, in the approval
of the Light Rail extension by the Federal Transit Authority?
L: Nothing.
E: Can you talk more about the specifics of getting Golden Valley on board with the
project?
L: Its been quite awhile since it happened so I apologize, I don’t remember all of the
details. It was during the corridor selection process and they had some concerns
about where it was going to be. I think the part they were worried about was next to
the existing rail corridor or in the existing rail corridor. Really? We’re upset about
putting a train on some existing tracks? It didn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
E: There was some opposition from some environmental groups, correct?
L: I mean the park was right next to it. I think was the neighbors that were the most
organized who were immediately adjacent to it who didn’t want to see anymore
traffic on those tracks.
E: Did they contact you guys? Do you know about how they lobbied the Council?
L: I think they just called their councilmembers and expressed their concerns. And
the mayor showed up at the meetings and talked about it.
E: Did you specifically lobby Mayor Shep Harris?
L: He was supportive of it. He helped us identify who we needed to talk to on the
council.
E: So part of the Blue Line extension is funded by the state. Does your organization
do any lobbying on state funding or potential state funding?
L: Yep.
E: Did you specially lobby on state funding?
L: No, I did not. I try not to focus on the state stuff. We have state Building and
Trades organization as well that does state issues. I can go over there and give our
perspective.

20. E: I might reach out to you and get a name or two if that’s ok. Did you work at all
with the Metropolitan Council? I am aware that they had to initially approve the
plan.
L: Right. Yeah I worked with Adam Duininck [Chair of Met Council], and who
predated him on the Council, who I think was Sue Hagan there at the time as the
chair. It may have been even before that, you know?
E: Kimbley-Horn was awared the engineering contract, is that correct?
L: Yes, I believe so. Yes.
E: Did you play a role in lobbying for that decision? Are they a client?
L: No.
E: Do you lobby for any specific groups like Kimbley Horn?
L: I lobby for work for members, so we have members from multiple contractors so
we don’t play favorites. Any of the above.
E: Do you remember the names of the Golden Valley City Council members that
were opposed, or neutral maybe?
L: Joanie Clausen was one of them. What’s her name? Paula Pentel had some
concerns.
E: So you said you made calls to city council members and then used grassroots
organizing? Was there anything else that you did to contact these neutral Council
members?
L: No. Attended the City Council meeintg, I mean.
E: Are there many dues paying members in Golden Valley? Or is only the
Minneapolis jurisdiction?
L: No, we have members in Golden Valley. I don’t remember due I think we have like
a thousand. The exact number does come to mind so I’d have to check the numbers
to find out for sure again.
E: Did you play any role in lobbying any of the specific provisions of the extension
plan? Or did you just work on getting approval for the city?
L: Just getting approval.
E: What other cities did you lobby?

21. L: We kind of kept an eye on the other ones, Brooklyn Park and Crystal. Those were
the only other two that had concerns through the municipal consent process. It’s my
understanding that by the time it came up we weren’t able to get engaged. They had
to work out their issues and conditions. At the last minute we found out Crystal had
some concerns, but the day of their vote I tried to have our members call their city
council members, but they did what they did and took no position on it.
E: Did you have any other organizational allies that you lobbied with?
L: Yeah, Transit for Livable Communities. And we worked with the County Transit
Board and the council so we knew how the votes were going to go. It seemed that
they lined up and we didn’t really need to get engaged. In hindsight I could have
worked a little bit harder on Crystal, but it wasn’t a bad result anyway, so.
END

22. Council member Interview Transcript
Council member: C
Evan: E
[Recording started late]
C: … planned it that well, and when we had our first vote I did vote no for it because
I thought it would be nice for it to go down 55 for it to actually service residents of
Golden Valley, because its kind of on the edge right now, and its going through park
lands and open space, so I voted no and…
The emails, we did receive more emails from the residents saying they didn’t
want it, lobbying us to vote against us, and then we did for it, but once I voted no for
it I started hearing from people who wanted it, you know usually people that don’t
want it have the loudest voices, but really then over the next 6 months I really did a
lot of research and learned about it because Hennepin county really didn’t educate
us very well on this and I walked the line, and I asked Hennepin county for a ride, I
talked to residents, and I kind of went out and did my homework. Now I never was
pressured by either the Met Council or Hennepin County. They never lobbied, the
only thing they did do, because there were three of us that voted against it. So the
first vote did not pass in Golden Valley. We were the only city that it didn’t pass, so it
held up the Light Rail. But I wasn’t really pressured by Hennepin County.
I did see one of the Hennepin County commissioners at a fundraiser for the
county commissioner, and he said like “Why would I waste my time with you when
you already made up you mind.” He was kind of nasty about it. The other thing they
kind of did that was not absolutely lobbying or talking to us, because I reached out
to them, they kind of made it clear ‘Golden Valley, don’t ask Hennepin Country for
anything.’ So that was a way to lobby us in a more silent way, you know what I
mean? And what they were going to do was kind of punish us. And in the next six
months, I talked to people on both sides, I learned much more, and I ended up
changing my vote.
E: How would they have punished you?
C: Because we asked for grants. We work with Hennepin County, like they have
some Hennepin County roads. We work them all the time because we are in
Hennepin County. We pay Hennepin county taxes, so we want to see some of that
money come back to our city. So its kind of like we can play the game, you know?
But that was not the reason I changed my vote, but that was the lobbied us to let us
know how they felt.
E: Why did you change your vote? What was your reason for changing?
C: I changed my vote because I realized it was not going to go down 55. We had no
say. That was not their preferred route, and because I believe we need mass transit
for the future, but… I'm not happy about it going through parkland, it is on the edge.

23. I do think that this is something we should have done this many, many years ago,
because we’re all built up and its harder to put things through…. its something we
need for the future. We can’t keep expanding our highways, you know? We have to
get people off the road, and I think its gonna be a benefit for Golden Valley in the
future. It is an impact, there’s no doubt about it, but the benefits outweigh the
impacts. Plus, at first, more people didn’t want it, but really many, many residents
do want it. Now its harder for those people that live right by the impact, by where
the train’s gonna go b, but there’s just as many people that want it, if not more. So
that’s why I changed my vote, and do believe in mass transit. I just would have liked
to see a different location, but I didn’t have that choice.
E: Can I ask you about some of the conversations during those 6 months from when
you voted no to when you voted yes? Did resident turnout to open city hall meetings
have any impact on your decision?
C: Well in the first six months, there weren’t that many meetings because it was on
hold. But for me, I did talk to residents. And If they emailed me in support, I called
them. Some of them were shocked that I would take the time to call them up when
they were kind of going after me for my view for voting against it. I listened to them
and what they had to say. I reached out to Hennepin County, I said ‘I need to walk
the line, I need to ride on it.’ Actually they ended up taking our whole city. We also
invited our residents for rides as well, and once I changed my vote, then we started
design, what we wanted to see.
We were the first city to organize a city task force to listen and get feelings
from them. I know our mayor wanted everybody on there that was for it, but I
fought that, we need people that feel both ways to make it viable and fair. The one
good thing was that we had several people that wanted to be on it, plus then we took
some people that had the immediate impact, so we ended up drawing names to be
fair and we just lucked out, we got one for and one against, so someone was on our
side there. We have people on both sides putting their input into it. We had several
open houses in our city, in Minneapolis for Hennepin County. I think I attended all
but one of them, and the only reason I didn’t attend that one was because we had a
council meeting that night and we couldn’t be at both places.
Some mistakes were made along the way. And this was at the one meeting in
North Minneapolis and they had some virtual layouts of what that area could look
like in te future. Well they took the neighborhoods away and put density in, and the
neighbors thought their houses were all going. Hennepin County did not do a good
job there because people were like “Oh my god, my house isn’t there anymore.” We
have to be very sensitive to those neighbors, that neighborhood because that’s
where their investments are, where their homes are. And I do think maybe
eventually things could change. Change is very hard. We don’t have to do it
overnight. Let the light rail come and down the line see what happens. Now the good
thing that we tried to explain to those neighbors is you can’t use eminent domain
any more. You can do it for roads, but not for developments. In order to buy those
homes you need a willing buyer, a willing seller, and they cant just come in and take
them. But we would also have to change the zoning, which I didn’t jump into to. I

24. think there’s been a little lobbying against us on that because we were asked to
come to a streetcar, a West Broadway street car meeting, that may have gone to the
Courage Center. Well because we’re not willing to rezone that right now I had heard
that they weren’t happy about that. The Met Council, they want them to be all over.
I’m not in density, density, density. I think its good to offer different types of
neighborhoods; I think you’ll be more viable in the future that way. And we don’t
have to be Minneapolis, we’re Golden Valley. We have unique properties here, some
of them are big, we have some density. But we don’t have to make everything dense.
Because I do think a lot of people move to Golden Valley because they like the
openness, they like the open space. I’ve been happy with Hennepin County. I think
they’ve been upfront with us. I think they’ve worked with us. We had out municipal
consent vote and I pushed for parking.
(Next 2 minutes not relevant information)
Now I think they [Hennepin County] have worked with us. Now some residents
don’t feel that way. The people that have the impact and are against this, their kind
of against everything, you know? They don’t see any good with any of this. They
don’t see the good of the parking, anything.
E: Getting back to those 6 months in 2012, which organizations reached out to you?
Did you have any conversations with any trade associations, and if so, what were the
nature of those conversations?
C: We did have a public hearing, and actually one of our council members we have
now, he worked for the unions, he came in front of us, and that’s Andy Snope. And I
actually met him at Byerlys and he wasn’t on the council, and I suggested, maybe
you should run for the council. And he did and he won. And he did get up to support
the unions, to support the electrical and building unions for jobs. Even though I sell
to the unions in my business and I do support them, for me, that wasn’t the clincher
or anything. It was good to hear, but I wasn’t personally lobbied by them. I was
aware of how they felt and there were some letters or whatever, but that did not
play into my decision. My decision was really made in the belief of mass transit need
to transport people from a to b, and the future of the transit system was in the
Metropolitan area. That’s what really was my underlying decision to vote yes on
this, is the importance of mass transit and what it would do for our metropolitan
area.
E: Did you have any conversations with a Mr. Dan McConnell? He works for a trade
union. (Interviewed earlier)
C: No.
E: In those 6 months, you said a big reason why you changed your vote was that you
were educated better on the issue. Was that education done through work with the
county or the Met council? Or what would you consider that education to be?

25. C: Well that was because I reached out and I asked Hennepin County, I said, ‘I want
to walk the line with you. Lets walk this and answer questions. Give me idea what’s
this going to look like.’ I asked also, ‘I need to ride on this thing.’ The good thing is
the city participated then too, so it ended up not just me, there were other people
involved in this. When I went for the walk, 3 of the council members showed up. But
it hadn’t been listed as a meeting because I asked for it. I said, ‘I'm not leaving
because I'm the one who asked for it.’ So they had to leave because I wasn’t about to
leave. I also learned so much through talking to people and getting their POVs good,
bad or ugly.
E: Like residents? Or workers? Like Hennepin County employees?
C: Both. And our city staff as well.
E: What kind of conversations did you have with your fellow council members? Did
those who were for it try to persuade you to vote yes?
C: Our mayor was accused by [Mike Opat, chair of Hennepin County Board] for not
pushing for it hard enough, but I have to be honest, the only thing our mayor said to
me is, ‘Joanie, if you don’t change your vote it won’t pass.” But he didn’t pressure me
into it. Nobody really pressured me and I know I talked to Cameron (fellow council
member), who also voted no, and she as well said that she was never pressured by
Hennepin County either. I never felt pressured to change my vote.
E: So the conversations you had with the residents, Hennepin County, and City staff,
were they mostly positively for the approval of the light rail extension?
C: Well Hennepin County, they definitely wanted to see my vote changed, and I
never told them, ‘I'm going to change my vote.” But I let them know that they didn’t
have to worry. So I'm pretty sure that they felt pretty good going into that second
vote. Residents I would say were about 50/50. People were saying, “I don’t want it.’
And I would have to remind them I represent both sides here. There are two sides to
every story. I can’t make everybody happy. But for those who wanted to see the light
rail, oh they were thinking, ‘yeah, she’s representing us.’ I had people tell me, ‘when
you said no, you were my hero.’ And then I was the one changing the vote because I
personally thought it was the right thing to do. Maybe is a change that is hard today
amid impact, but this is an 100 year plan. I had to think outside the box. I had to look
for a vision for our city and for the Metropolitan area as a whole, you know? I took it
extremely serious. My best friend in Golden Valley, she didn’t want it at all! We
hardly talk about it, but if I just listened to my friends I wouldn’t have done it. I
really looked at both sides and did what I really thought I had to do.
E: Why was there a second vote if the first was voted down?

26. C: Well they did kind of say that every city had to vote yes because in order to get
Federal funding, it wouldn’t look very good to say, ‘look, everyone wants it but this
one city.’ And then you have some place out in California that says, “all these cities
want it.’ Where are they going to put the funding? Probably not to us. They wanted
all the cities to say yes. Plus, the one thing I was a little afraid of too is the rail system
already going through [GV]. In that 100 ft rightaway, we don’t have any say in there.
If Hennepin County wanted to work with the railway alone, it could go in there
anyway without any say from us. I really though that we need to get our questions
answered and we need to be at the table to get the best deal we could for Golden
Valley because I never felt the issue would die. They would figure out another way
to come back and get it.
E: So then did the county push the city council into another vote?
C: No. I think once I started changing they realized I was looking into… maybe could
change my vote, then… There were other times, like when we had that parking ban.
But a council member changed his vote so we had another vote on it, but it still
didn’t pass. I suppose they though they had a change in my vote. My vote was what
pushed Bottineau through. I’m sure it would’ve gone through, but it would have just
been delayed.
E: You mention that the county alluded to the fact that they might take grants away
from you did you didn’t approve the plan.
C: They really didn’t say it, it was a feeling. I heard through the city that they were
like ‘Don’t ask for anything.’ I just gave grants as an example. I have no idea what
punishment we would have gotten, but I had heard that. And I think that was a way
to coerce us into approving it, but to be honest, I didn’t like that, but it wasn’t the
reason I changed my vote. Because we are part of Hennepin county, we put tax
money in. I don’t really go for that. I don’t know if that’s anything anyone would ever
admit to, but I did hear that. But I don’t know what that would have totally meant.
E: So you think if the plan was not approved, there might have been some coercion
used by Hennepin County?
C: I think there would have been some pushback used by Hennepin County, I do.
END
Other Interviews:
 1 with a lobbyist for Transit for Livable Communities

27.  2 with other members of the Golden Valley City Council
o For anonymity reasons, one asked to not be quoted and the other
asked to not be referenced, but instead was used for background
information