Our project in the Mankato area presents some of the most challenging engineering and policy decisions we will have to make on this project. We are trying to ensure they are informed decisions. We are committed to build this project. But we are also committed to doing it with accountability and sensitivity to those most directly affected. At a recent public meeting in Mankato, we offered to restart that process there. Several basic points covered at that meeting may be worth summarizing:

1. In-city or southern route? First, the Mankato area is different from the rest of this project in that there remains two different alternative routes to choose from. Option one is to build a new rail line adjacent to the existing UP track in Mankato. Option two is to build a new rail line south of town. People want to know which one it is going to be. We explained that the answer to that question is at least 6 to 8 months away, and will depend on the results of a planning process tailored around the recent STB decision. Our intention is to advance engineering on both alternatives. If we can make the in-city alignment next to UP work as an independent DM&E operation and improve UP’s existing operations, we believe that route makes the most sense. But if legal, engineering, operational, or local impact issues make that option impractical, we expect to build the southern route. We do not know today which will be built. We will make that decision as soon as possible. It will be based on many factors. Obviously, a prime consideration will be cost. In comparing costs, we will need to include costs for any additional commitments we plan to offer over and above what is required as part of the STB mitigation. So those decision need to be made now. To the extent we know what the issues are and what people want, I am confident in saying that we will offer to pay for significant additional voluntary mitigation costs beyond those ordered by STB. Our objective in the coming months is to design the best plan we can for each alignment. Those communities participating should assume we will build the line that most directly affects them.

2. Local participation. Our second and most fundamental message was that we invite local participation in this planning and development process. This is not just to develop the initial design and mitigation plan. But it is an effort to establish a long-term working relationship. Issues that none of us can even contemplate today will develop in the future. But if we form a professional working relationship today, we will be able to more effectively address them when they inevitably pop up a month or a year or five years from now. We will have to make extraordinarily difficult and important decisions in the coming months and years after that. They will have lasting implications. I am confident we will reduce mistakes if those most directly affected are provided an opportunity to participate and make recommendations. This would be a consultative process. We do not expect others to make the controversial decisions for us. We sent this message to two distinct groups:

1. Elected Officials. Depending on which alignment is ultimately developed, we are aware of 4 local governments representing affected constituents. They are (1) the city of Mankato, (2) the city of Eagle Lake, (3) the city of Skyline, and (4) Blue Earth county. We are inviting representative bodies of each to participate in the process. At the end of the process, we will propose a community agreement that addresses all the issues any of these participants wants to see addressed in the plan. If we can do it, we will agree to it. If we cannot, we will explain why. Each can then make its respective decision whether they wish to enter into the proposed agreement or not. We are sending a letter to each of these entities to formally invite them to participate.
2. Individual Landowners. Mankato is also unique in Minnesota in that it requires establishing a right of way through private land not already owned by the railroad. We offered each affected landowner the opportunity to participate in the planning the rail design as it relates to his or her land. We described the Landowner Outreach Plan we followed in western South Dakota and Wyoming, and offered to implement a similar process with Mankato area landowners. We offered on-site visits, one-on-one meetings to review site-specific issues and answer questions. We also offered small group meetings and the formation of a formal Landowner Advisory Committee to address general landowner concerns. We started a sign-up process for those meetings. If you own land that would become part of the proposed southern route and would like to explore the possibility of such a meeting (either individually or in small groups), or if you would like to serve on a representative Landowner Advisory Committee, please call either Ray Gigear (our project engineer) or me at 605/697-2400.

One important caveat to this process that we emphasized at the meeting is that we strongly discourage participants from attempting to use it to push the line to someone else’s back yard. We are not seeking comments as to why it should not be built in one location or why it should be built in the neighboring location. And we are not seeking comments on whether or not it should be built at all. Those are extremely important issues. But those decisions are not ours to make, ultimately. And they have already been made. And attempts to reopen them now will only create frictions between neighbors. We have witnessed that elsewhere, and sincerely want to avoid it in the Mankato area. Our process is focused on how to best build either of the routes we have been given authority to build, and to do it in the most sensitive way practicable under the circumstances. We are seeking comments on how best to build it if, in fact, your location is the one that is built.