Mr. Mayor, how are you doing? All right, looks like it's noon, so we're going to just go ahead and call to order. You're going to do the pledge of pledge of 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. K. Can you do the roll call, please? Mr. Steinberg, here. Mrs. Rooric here.
Mr. White here. Mr. Lewis here. Mayor Whittington here. I'll look for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion. Second. There was first and second. All in
favor? All opposed. All right. New business. Well, thanks for for coming out and and doing this for us. We know this is going to a little bit different knowing that there's going to be another public hearing, you know, down the road a
little bit. Um, thanks for coming and kind of giving us more information here at the House of Council level. So, thanks Andy. Um, I was just looking to see because you probably do you have a thumb drive of your PowerPoint by chance? I don't, but I have my laptop
and it's on there. Okay. I wasn't able to get in there for some reason. I couldn't do it. Do you want to Yes, we can connect yours. It's always the technical stuff that takes the longest. Yeah, let's do that.
No, I'm told All right, thanks for having me again. Um, so I'm Angie Bersaw with Bolton and Mink here to talk about Highway 14 Eagle Lake corridor study. So wanted to just uh give a little brief overview again of
you can go to the next slide. Um the reminding just of the purpose of the corridor study and then where this fits into the typical project development like where a corridor study fits into project development process. Talk about
how projects like this are funded and then talk about um some of the review the recommendation discussions that have occurred in the last couple months and then hopefully get some input from you all and then talk about next steps in schedule.
So, you've seen um the next slide before, but uh you know, the purpose of the corridor study is to set a vision for the corridor. I won't dwell on this. You've heard me say this before, but really beyond setting a vision is to get all partners aligned. We have a state highway that runs through a community
and townships and um also has intersecting county roads and city roads. So in order to get partners aligned you know on a vision and to move forward into next steps the key point in that is to have alignment with partners
um to get that that agency support. So that really folds into how do these things move from study to projects um because as I said a corridor study sets that vision and that's really typically a catalyst into identifying funding. And
that graphic on the bottom, you can see, you know, that we are here star. Hopefully that that little star just keeps moving down these next steps. But the goal is that next step is finding funding. But first, you have to be aligned to find that funding. Um because
there's a lot of next steps. There's preliminary design, which is where you certainly you have a vision. You know where access will be along a corridor. you know, maybe generally what it might be where you're talking interchanges or um what type of access, but you
certainly still need to get into the details of what exactly that looks like. And so you work through preliminary design, final design, rightway, and before you get into construction. Um each of those boxes or oops if you can go back each of those design phases
takes you know working through that takes about three to five years of for each of those required phases. So it's a it's a long process from study phase before you actually get to a project. Um right now there isn't any funding for um
projects on Highway 14 beyond a planned pavement project that's identified in the outer years of Mandot's um pavement um plan. So in the next seven to 10 years uh so you know trying to find that funding is going to be key and so I
wanted to talk just a little bit about how fundings how funding for projects like this come to be this first and mind is here um in the in the audience so they can chime in at any mo moment too but u projects like this are funded a
little differently this first slide is about MDOT's capital highway improvement plan or it's called the chip Um, MNAT's budget, annual budget is really focused on funding its assets, pavement, bridges, uh, roadside infrastructure.
And you can kind of see that pie chart in the upper leftand screen. A lot of that green, most of the annual budget goes towards just taking care of the assets that it has. And you can also see um, on the bottom that bar chart, that's the annual budget per year over the next
10 years. So from 2025 to 2035 the district 7 which is this area um total investment plan it varies per year but it's somewhere in the range of 70 million to $126 million per year over the next 10 years and that money is
spent as it's shown in that pie chart. So a lot of focus on um pavement and bridges and roadside infrastructure and safety. So projects like this require outside funding. They just do. They require competitive funding sources from
uh federal and state sources. So on the next slide, um I just wanted to talk a little bit about how that works. Um this is pretty general, but there are and you've you've likely heard about this from projects like Highway 14 and other um projects that get funded. You know,
there are legislative requests. There's also competitive, what we call competitive funding sources where you actually write an application and you compete against other projects across the state or even nation depending if
it's you know federal. Um the the list of bullet points underneath it is different programs just a small list of some of the main sources that would this a project like this or projects like this would likely be eligible. quarters of commerce, highway freight programs.
There's some economic development related ones or even some discretionary grants that become available depending upon the year and the um administration at the time. Those type of competitive funding resources uh or funding sources, they do
require you know types of things that they look for. They look for people to be aligned. So, you know, one agency kind of being off on their own or twothirds of the agencies being aligned but one-third not doesn't usually get you very far. Um, so again, this
corridor study vision with everybody on the same page is really important, high benefit cost ratio. Um, which crash reduction is part of that, you know, so high high crash reduction. Um, how consistent are you with things like MDOT statewide plan? you know, those are just
some of the examples of how you score well in those um funding competitive sources. So, just wanted to give you some background information on how projects like these kind of come to fruition. And then I wanted to talk a little bit um coming back through I'm just going to
go kind of quickly through the first two options um concepts B and C. We talked about these a little bit last time that the project management team had talked about recommending to dismiss. So this first one was concept B, which was the
high tea at County Road 56 and the right in right out at County Road 1727 with the overpass at um County Road 55. Um the real reason for um dismissing that was just that you know it's it's
really uh There is some traffic rerouting, but it's rerouting through the residential area of of Eagle Lake and um limited access was really the main driver at County Road 1727 for both Eagle Lake and uh the county road
network. Also, moderate crash reduction and so kind of in that higher cost range. Concept C is on the next slide. That one was the alternating high TE's. also in high te to the south or yeah to the
south at county road 56 and to the north at highway 1727. Um this one although it does say and I just want to clarify it does say two full accesses to Eagle Lake um it really would be Eagle Lake to the north side of
of Highway you know on Highway 14 to the the portion of the city that's on the north there. So, this one doesn't really provide good access to the south of Highway 14 at either County Road 55 or 1727. So, again, that one um PMT was
recommending to dismiss, which really left us then with the two alternatives that we were talking about last time I was in front of you. Um and has been the source of the discussions over the last couple months. the concept A which is uh the high tea at county
road 56 and uh the uh the overpass with the realignments right in right out at county road 16 or 1727. Um just some I I I added a little bit or we added a little bit to the benefits and trade-offs here based on some of the
discussion points and I have a couple extra slides on that as well over the last few months. Um, again, the benefits have largely remained the same. Highest level of access to Eagle Lake, uh, minimal traffic rerouting, uh, to the
south side of the highway. Trade-offs, u most new infrastructure, you're adding, uh, two structures to the highway with the overpass at 1727 and a high T at 7 at count 56.
Moderate crash reduction. you still have the, you know, more conflict points with a high tee at CASA 56 than you would with a right in right out there, which brings down your benefit costs um compared to the other concept that we
have on the table yet, which also brings down the um competitiveness for the other funding sources that we were talking about. And it is still up in that highest cost range of 64 to 75 million.
Uh the other concept that's still on the table then is concept D. Um so this one has a right in right out at CASA 56 and a interchange at 1727 and um again some additions here based
on discussions. Um highest crash reduction again you have the least amount of access on Highway 14 which is why there is that slight difference here. Um the interchange at County Road 1727 supports the count county road network
connectivity but also um would support city development north and south of the city. Uh lease new infrastructure which lowest cost anytime you can reduce structure uh and highest benefit costs likely to
score well. So kind of the inverse of the other one we were talking about. Um but trade-offs loss of full access at Saw 56. You still have right in right out but not full access there and some traffic rerouting required.
So to dive in a little bit further to um an agency meeting that was held on June 4th with representatives of city county and mapo. Um just wanted to talk a little bit more about what some of the
nuances were of this discussion. Um you know I think there was general agreement that the interchange at CASA 1727 is a is important. It's important to the county. It's important to the city kind of for different reasons that I already
mentioned that there it's important for the county road network connectivity um both you know north of uh the highway for the county road network and south but then also for development um for the city and potentially what that could do
for east side development as well. Um, also previous investments in uh, CASA 17 and CASA 12 roadway network do provide safe and reliable access to the west and to highway 14 which is about one and a
half miles from CASA 56. And on the next slide um, concept A is unlikely to score well for competitive funds compared to concept D. and Blur County would be unlikely to support concept A due to required
investment levels given recent investment in county's surrounding roadway network. And by that, they were talking about the recent investment in the three-lane roadway from CASA 17 all the way over to Mano to connect with County Road 12 and the interchange with
County Road 12. Um, you know, Eagle Lake would prefer a high tea at CASA 56. Um, but you know, concept D doing is better than doing nothing. Um, if concept D were to come
to fruition, then future planning on the east side of Eagle Lake would be important with both a future land use plan and some sort of transportation network plan to make sure that that buildout makes sense for the city. Um, concept would be recommended. It
would be important to also include in that recommendation that the that um you know to utilize the maple planning dollars that there's other considerations here with some of the traffic rerouting that you could look
further into. Are there other safety measures for pedestrian crossings or um other roadways that should be looked at as traffic changes over time? particularly um mentioning park uh 17
Parkway Avenue 598 and 27 Agency Street due to some shifts in traffic patterns that would occur. And then I just had three slides here just to kind of kind of point out some of those points. This is a history of
changes over time. So, I I'm not going to point out all of the investments over time, but um I know, you know, with uh CASA 17 between the city of Eagle Lake and, you know, heading towards the west being improved in 2013
and then the highway 12, Highway 14, I'm sorry, Cassad 12, Highway 14 interchange in 2012. you know, just two recent investments of infrastructure that I I think the county was pointing to um with
the network uh investments. The rest are really related to just the timeline of how access has changed along Highway 14. We had prepared this graphic a while ago in the study process. Um the next slide um I just had
highlighted you know the yellow highlights are just showing again if concept D were recommended it should also include the discussion had said it should also include a recommendation to you know consider leveraging some MAP funds to look
further into what other um uh studies would be needed on some other roads to consider safety measures like pedestrian crossings and things like that highlighting those roadways that were mentioned. And then um this was something that we
had prepared early in the study phase um just showing potential future growth um and the the hash marks you know so the areas in uh that could occur through 20 240. You know, it's always a crystal ball a
little bit with developments. Um the areas with polka dots are beyond 2040 likely. Um again, this is this is all estimated, but you can see it, you know, from from the future land use plan, it it is both east and west sides of the
city. Um, and I I think the point was if if concept D were recommended, there certainly would need it's it could support development on the east side of the city. It would require some planning though for you know transportation network and such to make sure that that
east side is ready to grow out um and the network is there to support it over time. So um just to talk about before I'm happy to answer questions. Um, you know, kind of what's next. So,
I think we were talking as a PMT and agency group about two scenarios. If there's no consensus on a recommendation with this study, um, what happens? Uh, so if there's no consensus, um, Mindot
is likely to continue to monitor the corridor. um monitor it for safety issues. Um if there's any operational issues, so left turns become a problem, they start to back up, you know, those kind of things. Um and they will
continue to modify or close access over time as needs dictate, just as you've seen along the corridor that's occurred over time. Um there is a chance, you know, if development occurs in really any of
these areas that it could preclude the development of future improvements, specifically an interchange if it were to occur at 1727. If development occurs in that area, the risk of of waiting without a plan becomes risky.
Um we do know Mandot has a they pavement needs they they forecast that out and they they've identified they have a pavement project sometime in the next seven to 10 years. So, if there's no consensus, they're likely to just do that project as a pavement project. Um,
and not seek additional funding. Um, the Highway 60 interchange, um, so, you know, we have looked at other improvements on the corridor, that's that's likely a separate project. It will be driven separately by future traffic volume, safety issues, and local
road connections. So, you know, separate from this, if there is consensus on a recommendation, um the projects would likely be grouped just as I was saying, whatever happens in this Eagle Lake area would be grouped together separate from
the Highway 60 area. So, the order and the timing would depend upon funding and needs on the corridor. Um but most likely at this point if it were concept D um CASA the interchange at CASA 1727
would be paired at the same time with the right in right out at 56 and then that highway 60 interchange would be separate whether that's first or second you know to be determined based on on needs. So um you know the proposed
recommendation recommendation is concept D based on the information you've seen so far but we're here because we wanted to share this information and uh get your input
and as mayor said um the plan is we wanted to come before you again before going back out. We do have in our um plan to go back out and have one more public input meeting where we say here's the proposed recommendation or or not,
you know, whatever that may be. Perfect. So, we'd like to open it up for the council to kind of ask questions. That's kind of why we're here, right? So, council woman. Yeah. What um what intersections use the
most 56 or 2717? um you know when we looked at the patterns of where do people um leave the highway about four and I'm gonna speak in percentages for a second um eastbound
I wonder if I have that just might have it in my extra slides here I Jennifer, could you flip to um these purple graphics? Okay, there you go. So, this is just showing um these are percentages from
what we call street light data. So, it's capturing um cell phone data as people travel on the corridor and exiting information. So, if they're traveling westbound, and I have an eastbound graphic, too, about
4% are exiting um northbound at 27 and 4% at southbound on 17 and 3% at 56. And then if you go eastbound, go to the next one, Jennifer. There you go. that there
is a very heavy uh right turn at the Casey's intersection 56 and about the same that go north at 27. Yeah. So, I mean, I guess that's kind of my point there is about fif, you know, 14% of that is going east but going back
west when they turn around. You know, they're getting on 14, but then doing the whatever you guys call it to go back to Mano. And I'm just I don't know why we're spending a lot of money on the intersection that isn't used as much, I
guess, in my opinion. um you know because that 15% like I said is is in my head thinking that's used a lot more um and I guess more dangerous in my eyes
than the one uh 2717 and so that that 15% that would still remain with concept that right that right going on. It's I get a glare so it's hard for me
to see it. So like leave like if I was going to Mano, what's that percentage? Because I I want to say some of our past meetings you said it was like 1,800 cars leaving or something, right? 1800 that make that left today. So what's that in your percentages being that we're talking percentages? have a
percentage because I agree with with council member White where where you're pretty much saying shut down 56 put everything to to 1727 but the data shows
yeah opposite of that. Um now there's there's conversation that the council's having um and hasn't had a lot of yet of what does growth look what's our long-term plan and things like that. Um, but Eagle Lake residents are proving
even after half of them that used to use the J turn or that intersection now don't because they don't feel safe, put something safe there and they will come back. I not going to guarantee it, but I know several that I've talked to that don't said if I could get there safely, yes, I would much rather not have to go
to 12 or not take 14 at all. I agree with that. I mean, losing losing that uh the high tee or whatever we would put there would be pretty inconvenient, I feel like. And looking at the percentages, I mean, I would agree. It seems like the right in right
out the numbers just don't match. Like I feel like having something more substantial there at 598th would be be pretty beneficial. And I mean, I'm in agreeance with what the other two members have said as well. I mean, I feel like we need something there besides a ride in, right out.
Where is your accidents happening on 56 right now? Are they at the J turn or are they at the actual intersection to pull out on 14? So I think since the J turns have gone in, it isn't there isn't as big of a crash issue there. The issue is that
over time as volumes continue to grow that left turn um across so the the eastbound to southbound left turn lane that crosses Highway 14 it's going to start to back up where they're not going to be able they they don't fit in that turn lane anymore. So the issue is at
some point that J turn starts to break down. Whether that's five years, 10 years, 15 years from now is hard to know. Um because it's all based on growth and how fast the community grows. So it isn't so much about safety as it
is about the the mobility that the operations of that. Okay. So So if I'm understanding right, you're saying that traffic count will overflow the current intersection, but there is a lot of traffic that uses that intersection. So that intersection is
widely used but will overflow that intersection. So we're going to shut that down. So why wouldn't we then put the high tea in where it has the allowed traffic flow versus shut down our main used intersection. So I think you know what
we when we look back at what we are trying to do with this we looked at 10 alternatives and it's really about where to put access where do we put access on the corridor and how do we do that in a manner that can be can get funded and so we looked at options that had all the
access at 56 none at 1727 all at 27 n you know we looked at 10 varieties of access along this and we we got it down to four brought that out to the public. You all have weighed through the four options and the benefits and tradeoffs of those. So now we're we're down to
these two that are, you know, very different in terms of, you know, traffic patterns and their costs and how they'll competitively score funding. So I think the I think what Eagle Lake needs is the D2 option that we've been
presented. I and I know we've been in sever other me meetings that you know you've heard Mayor Moodington's heard um the public has not heard because they haven't been involved obviously but um D2 is a high tea in the full interchange
and I I just I'm struggling to support shutting down and I'm saying shutting down because you're you're limiting traffic to only a right in right out to to shutting down what is our highly and heaviest used intersection and Yeah.
And just to tell us, hey, go to 12. I understand 12 was built to tell Eagle Lake residents, go to 12. But the county, Mindot, and maybe I wasn't on council and others did, but to my understanding, Eagle Lake wasn't presented saying, "Hey, we're going to put this interchange in here so all of
your residents in 10 years, 20 years can go here." We didn't have input. Now, I feel like we're just being told what we're going to have to do whether we like it or not. Everyone testing program delivery I just wanted to
respond one of the comments I think around the shut it off concern so I think when we look at the alternatives we see 15% off that's still accommodated the right out of 56 and the
concern of coming back then is probably coming in structure right there's something associated with psychological delayual delay moving west to go west is still beneficial on so
I guess I wouldn't quite characterize it as shutting it down because the dominant move is still there infrastructure which is typically what you start talking about you think about sorry I'm right
some of these major US highways as traffic volumes increase where we consolid access to do it simply. I think I was just going to start there. I think you know ultimately you know the the best one for Eagle Lake is obviously
the most important one that was D2 right so that's that um currently you know has the current growth and the future growth right so if we move east you know that full intersection intersection at 17 is very very valuable but we still have you
know between now and 10 years you know how do we you know how do we get there. So, you know, I think from a a city perspective, D2 would be the ultimate, right? So, you know, as we talked about that, you know, when we met earlier, um
knowing that that was probably priced us out of the the game kind of thing. So, so I think, you know, I'm not quite sure how we get to consensus of, you know, this would be the ultimate for Eagle Lake. we, you know, I think, you
know, personally, but knowing that, you know, there's obviously constraints of funding and timing and other things that, uh, that are getting harder and harder, you know, as we go forward here. So, um, my concern about just doing a high
tea at 56, I think it limits the growth of the city of, you know, it puts the puts it right in kind of not the heart of the city, but, you know, just kind of right at the edge of the city. But, you know, the overpass and and the
intersection at 17 gives us, you know, a a chance to grow east and maybe create some business corridors that we don't currently have. um that you know we're just kind of landlocked and not not being able to do that. So you know this this is ultimate
you know where do we go from here? You know how do we get to consensus of you know everybody have a consensus and we can as a local state and federal government you know be able to to to pay for this you know you know at this time.
So you know get some insight into that. I was gonna acknowledge a couple items. I think uh there's the existing patterns, there's the future patterns certainly uh as Mindot looks as this and
pulled up the slide of the polka dots and the hatching. We see a lot of grow potential to the south, some to the northeast, right? But you're constrained by a lake to the north. And so it's it's interesting when we talk about the
two different alternatives A and B but there's D2 as well um about the level of investment between them and the reality behind competitive solicitation programs um I I mentioned
this in the agency meeting um over the years we we sort of have this the um you know do we go for the the penultimate solution and wait or do we go for something that'll you know accomplish 95% of those are numbered. I
mentioned at the agency council meeting a trail between Mano and St. Peter and Highway 22. Originally the DNR worked through it was over an 8-year process where they had identified taking a lot of the unman property along the river and building a trail there. They
couldn't get consensus across land owners. And so the question back to agency partners was is something along 22 better than nothing because it it lacks some of that scenic nature. Ultimately, city city of city of St. Peter County all passed resolutions in
support of something that they considered better than nothing. Uh and I'm not trying to make this an all or nothing sort of thing, but that's generally how we see some of this atypical infrastructure they built. City of New is another example uh where there
was a conversation on four lane versus the interchange outside of town at Highway 14 and 15. Ultimately, the city passed a resolution saying no, we want the Y intersection outside of town. We we want that investment made there uh
such that you know uh less dollars were spent on lanes coming into town. Some of those trade-offs. So it seems like when we're talking larger projects, we we see that a lot to the various trade-offs. Portland was very similar. Uh back in 2018, they expect to have two
interchanges to access their town. Uh that's ultimately not what was built. There was some compromised county contributed to funds to some interchanges over there for that to happen. I think I want to acknowledge too what
Angie mentioned about Mindot's pavement project. Um we saw some concerning behaviors uh prior to the 2023 left turn lane closure at SA 17. We would expect our agency to continue
monitoring the corridor like that. Um, as we start to see potential concerning behaviors as the agency takes its role in toward zero deaths very seriously, which I can expand upon, that's what we typically do on the south side of St. Peter. This past year, we just closed uh a left off and a left on the highway at
uh Washington Avenue uh south of town. So, th those are things we do consider and look at. Right now the the middle intersection I think that's kind of where 55 hasn't seen concerning behaviors. Um they've been on and off
with some revised improvements at 56. Uh I wouldn't preclude us from addressing access concerns either prior to the pavement project or with the pavement project if we are seeing concern behaviors which could mean a right in right out.
I think those were some of the comments. Can you clarify that piece then? Because when I just asked Angie on 56, she said that there really hasn't been anything, but now you're saying, "Hey, we could potentially shut that down pre any construction." So, I'm getting conflicting or maybe I'm misunderstanding at all.
Yeah, in general crashes are widespread and infrequent. Uh, at times there are hot spots. Folks might be familiar with Highway 22 and Augusta Drive in Mano on the north side with where the new Quick Trip was built. Um, very early on that
had significant crash problems. Um, and then it it saw a period of a year and a half where it didn't. Uh, we still built the roundabout because of the various conflicts that could occur on that uh, you know, middle speed corridor. So, there's times where we have crashes and don't, we look at what sort of
concerning behaviors are existing. So I'd say uh recently there haven't been as many crashes though that's something we still monitor separate from delay concerns which Angie was talking about like a left turn lane queueing and back in the main line 14. So those are two
different things to be are there delay concerns right now? I mean, I drive it every day, so I can give you my opinion. But from what you guys are seeing, Yeah. specifically left in because the right out, you're not regardless of what option, there'll always be a right out. But a left in Yeah. I'd have to follow up with our
traffic folks. The level of service that how the intersection forms right now is not concerning. Not right. So I guess one of the things I heard is if we do nothing, so if we don't come into consensus and we let it kind of
organically change, we could end up as you as you do your pavement projects in, you know, five to seven years. We could lose that that intersection depending on what's what's determined at that time because, you know, obviously you make those decisions when you're putting in
new concrete and new pavement. Um so there's the potential with no no consensus that becomes a right in right out no matter what. Correct. Um we have not really as a city looked east. We've always been looking west and
trying to stave off big brother kind of thing. Um so one of the concerns going east is we don't have any transportation infrastructure to get out there except for uh County Road 17. Um, so we, you know, we've, we'll need to do some work
as a council to kind of start looking east. You know, we've, we've kind of mentioned that maybe a couple times over the past couple years, but, um, you know, getting to that interse as as we grow, you know, we just opened up phase two of a of a project over
there. Hoping that comes along. But there's also some other geological hurdles over there, right, with wetlands and and other things. So, I'm just not sure where we end up here. Um, yes, please. M commissioner commissioner
county board citizen of Eagle Lake. I just want to reiterate as was mentioned earlier in the intergovernment meeting we had. I expressed concerns about building both intersections. I don't have enough horsepower staff levelwise to build both those
intersections and I to be totally honest with you I don't think we can fund both I hate to say it's going to be picked one or the other and we have to take D2 off the table because I don't I don't think it's feasible in the next 10 years for sure that is just a pile of money
that the county just does not have now you've all read about the dam the situation we got out there we're talking about a bridge that has to put back in 500 cars a It's come with some huge price tags and that's removing a road from people that already have it. So these are some
challenges that I'm going to have at the board level if we bring D2 forward. I I certainly will run it through the the board, but I will tell you I'm going to have some challenges because both those intersections I don't know Brian put numbers together
for me, but to fund both those intersections just our portion of the pay the money would be more than we could fun in the next 15 to 20 years on our portion. So, uh that's just some information I want to hear from the
board here because we talked about Those are some of the other challenges we have to deal with and we've talked about several times already. We don't do anything that intersection cases is just going to start to get smaller and smaller.
What is the probability? You know, you've been doing this for a couple days. Uh what are the probabilities if we went forward with those two interchange even if you were able to find the funding? Would it be a kind of something that would never go at the state level? Because you know the three
funding levels, right? Or is you guys state federal, right? Federal. Yeah. Just the county portion. Unless we get a bunch of money from the state or federal government, you wouldn't be able to come up with money to fund those two legs.
So, those are some challenges. Those are local challenges that I have trying to move this project forward. And they're real and they're getting more and more real. What the federal government does to us in the next few months what they're talking about doing 8 million short. We're already looking
at a 8 and a half% levy increase for county taxpayers now which is the highest second highest in 30 years. So you know property values are shifting from egg to resial resial
taxpayers are going to take a hit. So just an FYI and I again I wanted to make sure that the rest of the council heard my concerns. No, I think that's a lot of good information. Thank you. Other questions.
Do we as a council believe that we can support anything besides D2 at this point or do we want to you know I guess timing wise when do we need to come to consensus? You know I think you know one of the things we've talked about as a council is we need a lot a lot more
citizen input to be able to to kind of Yep. So you hear your name? So you know our I'll just talk big picture first. I mean our study is scheduled to is supposed to wrap up in this July, August timeline. Um, we do
want to have one more open house. We would like to have um the message, you know, put together before we go back public and and whatever that may be. So, uh, we have not scheduled that open house. Um, so I think we're we're waiting on your timeline. Um, I know,
let's see, the study has to be done by the end of the year with just the Maple funding dollars. So, I think everyone would like to be done sooner. Um, just because, you know, we haven't been
early spring. I think it was April. So, it's been a while since we've been back out in front of the full public. So, I mean, there I'm not giving you a very clear answer, but the sooner the better, but I also realize you have your process to work, too. I guess the question would be what would
we bring to the public hearing? We would like to bring a recommendation. So last time we were in front of them, we shared all four options and how we got to that point and the benefits and trade-offs of each. We would like to bring um here's the recommendation and
why and then share you know what is next. Again, kind of what I started with. We're at a study phase. uh mind has a pavement project seven to 10 years but you know study phase is a catalyst for funding the intention is to plan for
the future so but the important thing is here's the proposed recommendation or here yeah and and you know share that information so that open house would be besides telling the residents here's
what we're going to propose or we're going to do them going and saying I don't like it this would what our you know because where I'm sitting is I felt like you guys wanted me to say and some of our meetings I support that and as an elected official I'm not going to support say that
without knowing that the constituents can support that. So they're going to that open house and you guys are telling them or sharing with them what your proposal is. 80% of the residents say no we don't want that. Is that even going to matter? I mean, why should the
residents go when they can just read the paper saying here's what we proposed? Well, part of it is is educating on why, you know, how did we get to this point? Filling in the gap of where we were last time in April and how did it get to this point. So, there is this, you know, we owe it to them to explain here's where
we were and here's the proposed recommendation and why. Um, so we do. So from our end though, having their voices heard for us to tell you guys, their voices were essentially to be heard at that last meeting, not at another meeting for any change. Right.
Okay. I think that's where I'm struggling a little bit is I feel like Well, I don't think we need the meeting. There's there's either one option or no, right? I feel like we know what we want. The money doesn't tell different. And frankly, living through the last eight
years and the changes that have happened, um, respectfully, Mindot's going to do what Mindot feels they need to do, whether we agree or disagree. Um, I I don't I don't know if the them, you know, I don't want to waste residents
time if they come and say, "You're not fixing the problem. You're just shutting the problem down and forcing to me kicking the can down to 12 or to somewhere else." And frankly, I'm nervous that it's going to kick it into Eagle Lake on agency 598 and Parkway saying and even Laray saying now the
city has to fork up some more money and get um add additional pedestrian crossing additional I mean I think at one of the meetings someone even said a roundabout another roundabout in Eagle Lake. Well, that comes at a fairly high dollar amount to Eagle Lake residents on something that they didn't fully support
to begin with. So, I think that's where I'm struggling is is I can understand the money's not there, but in my mind the request of the city residents and that don't aren't aligning. So, as a council, do we think that we
need to do another public open house internally, you know, before we get to the recommendation? you know, um how do you know obviously what you're wanting is coming to the open house with
a consensus. You know, this is what we're going to do and this is how we we came to that decision. Um to get more input from the city residents before then we would have to have our own public input. um to gather
that information. Is that something that uh we want to do as a council? And you know, do we need to get that on the calendar because we do need to end this um appropriately and soon. Um so,
well, I mean, my point is what's the point? Yes. You know, yeah. So, I don't think it really matters what they say or don't say. It's option D or nothing. So, is that what we ask them or what are
we asking of? Yeah, because what I hear is option D or eventually it'll be we'll have right in right outs potentially at Cass 56. Um, and then nothing really at, you know,
the current situation at Cany Road 17 or is that that'll be looked at too, I'm assuming at the time of the pavement project as well. if that's performing well or or changes need to be made.
Okay. So, that could potentially change in a small way or or dramatically, right? Um, I think, you know, we have to kind of look at, you know, where the county is at and knowing that, you know, we're
talking close to probably if one was 74 million, we're probably talking at least 100 plus if we did both. And that's not something that we would be able to What's the Eagle Lake portion? I mean, when we talk the corridor study,
we talked 60 and then these two. What's what's the Eagle Lake portion? You know, because this whole time we're talking. Yeah. You know, we've been throwing around like the 65 to 75 million, but that includes Highway 60, right? So, when we're going to do these in two phases anyways, they're more than likely
not going to be done together. You guys are going to be going at two different times for funding sources. Correct. So what's the eagle lake portion funding or dollar amount whether it's I I don't care co like cost saving or sharing and things like that. It's just is is the
full interchange at 60 35 million and then the Eagle Lake two intersections at 40 million or what's the Eagle Lake intersections cost? What's the project for? Because to me they're two different projects, right? You know they're not
being lumped together. And then I guess while you're looking at that if I I feel strong armed that D2 D is going to happen and if D doesn't happen you'll shut down to write in right out before the road gets redone and then D is going to be the option
anyways. Um, how long I mean is there any studies that say okay at at the level that the JT turns been built that can withhold X amount more cars so that should be fine for the next 10 years where something might change and and now different growth happens and we say no
the high te can't happen or can't I I don't know I mean we don't have crystal balls saying what will or won't let me back to the first comment you made about cost participation two things right now that's in the process of updating our cost petition participation policy for the legislature
sometime next February. So there are things that right now which may affect future changes though finish. So is that a bigger percent or a smaller percent as you're proposing?
In general the legislature is looking for to have more flexibility to pay for more things. Okay. Not that uh when we talk about the intersections with Eagle Lake uh
typically we look at local road ownership in this case you know 17 uh 2756 those are Cassana roads and so MDOT will have some level of cost share with the county u we talk about uh city I I see less so uh depending on what sort of
you know adjacent needs there are from the city uh a lot of times uh we see communities saying, "While this road is being ripped up or replaced, we want to do local utility improvements, whether that's casing or installing, no sanitary water, anything like that." Those are those are typically elective items.
However, again, it's typically cheapest when everything's ripped up. So, as it relates to the, you know, the interchange itself, the way, and I'll just talk about 17 27 for a moment. Uh, the county would have some share with
Mindot. I don't believe the city would I think where our cost comes in with the interchange is is getting out there with transportation local roadway extensions yeah because I think the city if that if or when that goes through we have to
look at getting utilities across otherwise Oh yeah we definitely want that'd be the time to do it that' be the time but what I'm saying if if we don't have if we have right in and right out and the interchange. We don't have any roads
on that on the east side of the city to to to take advantage of that interchange right now. And then to answer the second question you asked about delays, go back to our charts. Um if we saw about 100% growth
uh for volumes in the area then we start to see breakdown of significant cues which typically like uh less what we call gap tolerance of motorists higher risks higher crashes. So that's a think about that 100% growth factor.
So there is a possibility to keep J turn access or the J turn there if the if the interchange happen you know if the if this all happens is there a possibility to keep the J turn there instead of only a right in right out to at least have access at that
intersection. Sure. I want to make sure I understand the question you're talking about. Uh if under concept D an interchange is built at 1727, the potential for leaving the J turn at the I'm going to call the Casey's intersection. Yep. Um
wasn't I don't believe assessed as much. Typically when you look at these level of investments, you know, the $40ish million, you're looking for significant access uh revisions and safety benefits for it to compete better.
So that's where we get the more safety score by taking the J tournament. right in, right out, there's a little bit of removals, so it's like 1.5 million. Um the the interchange
um at 1727 is actually 21 million. So a little bit less roughly in the same ballpark. At a planning level range like this, I would consider them Oh yeah. Uhhuh. 1.5 million.
Okay. Today's dollars. So we would inflate greatly by every year that we wait. I'm not sure where we're at right now. Um I don't know if we can get to a
consensus as a council to say we would we would support D or are we at the council saying D is inevitable, you know, we reluctantly support that.
Um, can I just ask a question about if I was understanding the public meeting questions right? So I think what I think I heard two different things, but one option I think you were talking about is maybe the purpose of the meeting and and
I would certainly look for partners to chime in here if I'm off, but would it be acceptable to have a meeting to present a proposed recommendation rather than here is the recommendation?
Um because it seems like you are all seeking what does the think about that. Well, I think but that is a proposed if we're saying that, you know, our partners in this aren't going to be able to fund or support that, you know, it
doesn't feel like that's something we would take to the to the constituents, right? So, be like, yeah, that's kind of nice, but that's not going to happen kind of thing. So, I don't I wouldn't feel good about bringing something out that that we're not going to be able to do.
Yeah. You know, I think it if we were to have a meeting, it's this is what we're doing. This is the numbers behind it. This is why not like this is what we're proposing. No, this is what we are going to do. And then tell them why. I mean, if that's going to help, I don't know if it's going to, but
I'd agree. You'd have to be very educational as to why we're doing it this way. I think we get a lot lot of people on board if we're just like the reason why we're doing it this way is because of funding. You know, this is better than nothing. If we don't do it this way, then we don't really get a whole lot of anything. This is why we're
doing it. And I think people would would come on board if we could explain why we're doing it. That Yeah, we're not a big fan of it either, but this is better than nothing. Well, and I think for what I understand is this board needs to to come to consensus and and basically tell our
partners, you know, that that's the one we're going to support. Um, and we're on board and we're in within consensus of of the group. Is that Oh, go ahead. Well, I was just going to say, could I ask a question, mayor and city council, I don't want to interrupt you guys' um deliberation here, but a question that I
guess I would be interested in is whether it makes sense to reach out to our state and federal legislators and let them know kind of what we're looking at here. um because we would be seeking you know state and federal funds and it's hard I think to
you know it would be helpful to kind of get some feedback from them and this is completely you know out of line we would never even consider maybe that's just me I think that might be helpful I don't know what your thoughts are on on doing something like that
it just seems like just with the way the winds are blowing with funds. I feel like we probably wouldn't get very far with that because they're already being kind of restrictive as it is from what it sounds like that. I mean, we could go ask, but I feel like unfortunately it would probably just be declined because
just the way money's been and how it's going. I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm just I'm afraid that it'd be kind of a waste of our efforts. So, um, still in that gray area, right? So
I think we need to be at the point where we can say that we understand as a council that D is our best option to you know one to make improvements. Not the ultimate option. Ultimate option is you know the uh
shining light on the hill kind of thing. Um but our best option for the city to move forward and could potentially be funded and and completed um is that we would support working with
the the group, you know, for concept T. Um, and I would look to the other is is that we say we're we want the ultimate and we're not going to to kind of come to consensus with the group and then all of
a sudden, you know, this whole corridor study kind of falls apart and then we potentially get what we get, you know, five to 10 years out. At least with D, we have some some say in the matter.
So, I'd look to and since we're at time and overtime, not to say that we need to cut this short, are we at a point that the council could support this? And I would look for a um
somebody to kind of push that forward with a first and a second. Um or we can't then we can't. But you know, I'd call the question, you know, now I I don't know. I I struggle a little bit still just being at all the open
houses. I can understand the financial end of it. Um safety end of it. those that don't like the J turn go 12 or 17 to 12 or into Mano the J turn could stay and but at
all the open houses everybody was and the and the data shows that's our main intersection and has minimal issues um especially when they've all come it's always they always talk about serious injuries serious things and it's had to my understanding very minimal since it's
been changed so I'm I'm struggling a little bit supporting um especially when in the past the community has um been in support of at least access over there and then what will that do to our proposed business industry there and
stuff. So, I'm struggling a little bit. Anyone else? I would tend to agree with Beth. Um I understand the funding aspect of things. Um however, I I see a big
problem with um a couple things. I don't see how that area to the east of town is advantageous for future expansion. I understand that it can be uh expanded and and uh developed as such, but I also
see that Lay Avenue, the west part of Lray Avenue, uh has infrastructure, and that's where future development could most likely come tomorrow if things were to align appropriately. Um, that being said, I don't know about
the funding stuff. Like what Kip said, I understand that. Um, but just in terms of Eagle Lake, I think that that's a very um important intersection and access point east and west with the R cut andor the
high T. So, I I I still have reservations when it comes to that specific intersection before I would jump on board with something uh that would uh you know be the opposite of what the community
members would want. So, are you talking doing nothing at 17 but a high tea cases? I'm not saying to not do anything at 17. I think the both and scenario is the best thing, but I know that the funding
is not going to be there. Um, I think that it's uh I think it's something that needs to be discerned a little bit more seriously about the closure of uh 56 and 14 uh or at least being able to keep the R
curves in there. Uh if if if there is an interchange, I know that you can't we can't say like, well, we'll have the interchange at 17 or Yeah, we'll have the inter change at the east side, but
then keep the R cuts here at um 56. I don't know how that works. I know that you just kind of mentioned that to make the safety of the highway, we would have to get rid of the R cut. Is that what I understood? As far as I understand, it's scoring.
So, in order to, you know, tell me where I go off the rails there, there's all kinds of scoring, right? Costs, benefits, safety, flow of the traffic, and things like that. If you leave that R cut, it's basically like everything else. If you leave the R cut in, our
safety rating goes down, our score goes down, and most likely the funding, it's harder to get funding because you have to score a certain level to to do that. Yep. We're competing, you know, with those scores. So, to take that out, you know, it basically
takes us out of the running for state money is what I kind of heard. Yeah. But I I think too, I mean, my point earlier was 56 to me is more important um for the city of Eagle Lake. 27 and 17
is something that could happen 50 years down the road. So I I don't know. I I would rather spend money and do what we need to do at 56 and wait on 17 and 27. Um I don't know. I just don't
immediate impact is 56 and that's not a question. Well, I think two things there. One is we're only going to get one cut. So it's going to be one or the other. So if you decide that that's the one we want to support, nothing will ever happen at 17
but shut being shut down in my my head in my version just because you know it's going to come through and you know that's what's going to happen whatever we decide. Uh my my concern with 56 is we've been talking about that for 20 years and we can't get the land owner to
do things that he may be able to do to to to make that a a really nice, you know, business community area. So knowing that it's it's heavily used there now because it's there um and not
that's where where I get kind of tripped up right that ultimately bringing the everything into the heart of the city which is right there would be a great thing if we could get that thing built and you know I've been on the EDA for 15 years you know we've been talking about
trying to get that built you know and we've had some things come through um that just never come to fruition because of multiple different reasons. But so yeah, I think we have one one shot at
it. Which one would we want to do? You know, makes sense right now that that's the most heavily used one. That might that should be the one versus, you know, we have a lot of work to get out to that other interchange. That's my fear, too,
is if we're talking the east interchange and the infrastructure that's going to be needed to be added to get Eagle Lake residents to actually utilize that one. Uh myself, for instance, I live on the southeast side of town and if both were done, I would drop kids off at school
and still go this way. I wouldn't go back that way to go into Mano. So, what is Eagle Lake gonna fund to build more roads to push that high density living that doesn't need to go to the elementary school to go that way then still do their habits going this way.
Um, I think there's some other um roads within Eagle Lake 211, the minimum maintenance road, continuing 598 that need extreme dollars put towards them ahead of building new roads that will get minimal traffic until that's done. So I I I think looking at the needs in
the next 10-15 years versus really the needs 50 years out. I think 17 and 50 years, yeah, that'll be heavily used, but in the next 101 15 years, I think our main intersection is still always going to be 56. So to support I know it's not considered shutting down
because it's the right in right out still, but um closing access on our main intersection is where I have a hard time. Can I ask a question? So, the study isn't wasted. Um, couldn't we still pursue or couldn't the city still say a
uh D2 is our preferred option? I know that the partners don't agree because of the funding, but couldn't we pursue trying to get funding with the highest cost um option? And yes, it's going to slow down our project and getting it done. But we don't know that we couldn't
get funding unless we try. And I know there's risks with that, but I think we're all just making the assumption here that nobody cares about our project in Eagle Lake and nobody's going to help us get it done. But we haven't even talked to anybody about it. It just feels like it's kind of happening fast.
And I guess I would just want to throw that out there. Maybe I'm feeling some of the pressure because residents I've talked to, they just say, "Well, well, I don't know why you care because MDOT's going to do what MDOT wants to do." And whether I agree or disagree with that comment, I don't want them to know, "Well, the city council just caved in,
too." when they knew that that wasn't right. Um, or not what we wanted. So, I'm just trying to not five years down the road and the shovel's digging or 10 and then they say, "Well, you guys are now on board with you're just going to do whatever someone else tells you to do
and wants to do. So it sounds like before we can give them an answer of consensus is we need to have a publication. We we need to do some more research in a in a post haste manner knowing that we need to close this out.
Um so how do how would we want to structure that? Do we want to set that public hearing date? Obviously, you know, we've got several people here that are listening to all this and want to make input, but you know, we're not set up to
do that today. Um, so is that something that we can set up for the next council meeting, you know, public input, and then we can come back with, you know, we can get on board or we can't. Um, according to what our our what we've
heard, I'll tell you, if all the residents come in and and 80% of them are saying, "Yeah, D works great," then yeah, you have my support. I just I I can't come forth saying yes, without knowing what residents want. I mean,
no, I I I don't disagree. So, I'm just trying to get to the point where we can either come to the group and say, "Yeah, you know, we've talked with our constituents and their own board and we want to move forward and D is it or you know, we can't support it." Um, you
know, and we'll have to move forward with whatever that means. Yes, Commissioner. You're struggling with public hearing and I get it. to many many public hearings. I've heard that you're going to do what you want anyways. Why am I here? And you brought up a very good
point though. Public hearings are for information building, letting people get educated on what's going on. Sometimes the decisions already made. We have dozens at the county level. We do by policy. Yes, we people there don't understand why I'm I'm even here. But it
does work out really well. I don't have a problem with taking another step with another public hearing. We certainly can bring both options to the table and let people tell you, but at the end of the day, you guys got to make the decision. That's what you get paid the big money for. This is crunch time.
Someone's got to pull the trigger. And if everybody in the room says you got 3,000 people in town and 300 people show up and they all say option D is the only one I'm going to support, the council got to sit down and say that
one ain't going to work. So these are the things you have to struggle with and it's it's not easy. It's very difficult decisions on you guys' parts. I think a little more discussion about your development plan. I know that's crunch time again because which way is
the town going to go? We stay here. I mean that all hinges on all these other intersections that we have. So well it's also the chicken and egg kind of thing, right? If that interchange was there, we would build toward it. If it's not there, right? And it just but that that's what
happens. We talk about this and somebody has to make a decision at the end of the day and it's going to be this table sitting here. I appreciate the you know wanting to get all the input you can from residents because you need to do that but not agree with the 20% or 10% of the
people you're talking to. Angie's probably saying what are you doing up there telling you we should have another public hear. We got to get this done. But I think you guys concern I think she kind of likes us. So, I think coming back in one more time isn't going to be a problem. I've been in your chair. I know what it's like to be in a small city and deal
with the small city politics. You're taking a lot of effort in trying to make the right decision. That's hard sometimes. Making the right decisions is your opinion, but it's it's not easy. So I think by doing that meeting and and
just kind of having the two options there yet I think again I can't say that you won't get funding for both of them. I'm just trying to give you a real perspective of the challenges I'll have trying to get funding.
Thank you. I I guess for me I think that's the big piece is I'm struggling with the right option and what's probably a feasible option. Um, so I guess I would propose more of a open house or a public hearing informational probably more so than anything at the next council meeting,
but then gives an opportunity for residents that do want to come to at least speak. Um, we can keep talking out to them, but that that's where I'm struggling. What I what I feel is right and what I feel can happen are maybe too far from being able
to be aligned, which is frustrating. Well, I think what I'm struggling with right now, if we have a public hearing, what are we going to propose? What are we going to bring forward? You know, like I said, I don't think it's feasible or fair to bring
potentially D2 forward knowing that it's going to get shot down, right? It's potentially never going to happen. You know, there is. So I think we can kind of work toward that you know and set the public hearing for the next council meeting but you
know the ultimate is what are we going to what are we going to talk about you know what are we going to propose you know is it to the point where we call the question and say you know it's D2 and move forward because we're kind
of at that point or is it you know how how much more do we need you the public has had, you know, several places to to put their input in. Maybe another thing to look at too is
does this does the study help or hinder Eagle Lake? If we hadn't done the study, where would we we be at and at what threshold would we be looking at having that intersection shut down? You does that make any sense to kind of Yeah. Where that is is if we never had
it done, we would be at the behest of, you know, the pavement study, right? When that comes through, you know, in 7 to 10 years or whatever that is. So, I'd look for a motion for um a public hearing the next city council
meeting during the fourth. Was it a A and B? Is that the two? Well, there's A and D. Yeah. Forward. It's one or the other. Option A or D. Okay. For discussion first. D2. Was it D2? I thought it was D2. No. What what's I think
D2 is D2 is the ultimate. What I think Councilman White is thinking about is if we're going to do one or the other, you know, he's looking at the most valuable intersection is the 56
versus the other. So So that would make make us proposing one or the other, which costwise you're in the same ballpark, right? So $7 million I think more for one versus the other one. So,
right. Yeah. So, that was 28 versus 21 at the other one. The number that provided earlier to just for the interchanges, right? 21 million and just construction.
That's a full year of our entire construction program. We have 743 miles to take care of one intersection. Oh, we're worth it. Um
What I'm hearing is that those two numbers was just interchangeable. So, we would lose, you know, we wouldn't build an overpass or would we? Because that's pretty much why A was kind of thrown out. Right.
Right. Right. But what but A is 56 was the high T and an overpass. option presented. I don't remember the letter on it, but it was a direct overass. But the problem was that all of that traffic
res. And so now you're going to bring all that traffic through town or worse. That's a tremendous impact our farmer market and all the fast acres that are out there to the northeast. So county saying it needs to be
interchange saying it needs to be high tea. We just have to come to a cohesive agreement essentially that it's one or the other not both. We have a first on the table. Do we have a second? And that's for the public hearing to
discuss A and hearing and bring forward A and D. We have a first on the table and a second. I don't know how many times I have to do that before the motion dies. This has never happened to me before.
This is new territory. All right, we have a first on the table and a second. I think for a lack of a second, that motion dies. Do we have any other
proposals? Motions. I feel like we should bring proposal D and have a public hearing just on that and then we can discuss why this is why we're going to why we need to do it and then see what people have to say about
that. But I think we should bring forth what sounds to be the most realistic one. You know, both we got both state and county saying that should be D. I mean, there's got to be a compromise here somewhere. I feel like there's not much of a compromise, but it does I mean
we got to do something. Okay. So, I think we should bring proposal D, educate the public on why we think it should be proposal D and then go from there. Okay. So, we have a first on the table. Anyone second the motion? Am I able to second or no? Am
I able to second a motion or no? I think so. Okay. I would second that motion. Any other discussion? All right. So, we have a first and second. So, no more discussion. I would look for all
motion to approve. I I I A motion to not approve. Struggling with my words now. I did you get the that carry
wasn't in favor? Yes. All right. So I think with that I think we'll move on in the agenda. Thanks everybody for coming. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner.
All right. So, come the next one, you know. So, it's the eighth, I believe. So, perfect. Thank you. Well, nobody wants to hear the rest of the story. Um, all right. So, uh, number two, the sale
of the firetruck update. Okay. Uh, mayor and city council, uh, there was quite a bit of discussion at the last city council meeting about the sale of the fire truck, um, and concerns about going ahead with that. Um, since that time, I've heard from the
fire chief, and he, um, said that his preference would be that we move move ahead, accept the bid. um they had had some discussion following the city council meeting last Monday at their meeting on Tuesday and it sounds like um
they feel that they um should sell it and get a second opinion on the crack on the ladder on the ladder truck. So um with that uh the fire department's recommending that we go ahead and accept the bid for 10,000 for the sale of the pumper truck.
I'm look for a motion to approve the sale. Motion. We got first and second. Any more discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed?
All right. Next item. All right. Oh, sorry, mayor. Go ahead. I didn't mean to. Okay. Um, next item is authorization to attend the 2025 Greater Mano Inner City Leadership Delegation um that will be traveling to Witchah, Kansas November
5th through the 7th. Um, seeking authorization for Mayor Whittington, Council Member White um, and myself to attend this. Um, I kind of talked a little bit about this at the last meeting, but there is a delegation that Greater Mano Growth puts together. um
they've done the last one they did was in 2018. Um and that time they went to um Arkansas and so I was on the I'm on the planning committee and I haven't been able to make it to all the meetings but I know the first one we spent a lot of time going back and forth between
different areas around the country um that are similar in many aspects to our region. And so the goal of it is basically to get a cross- sector representation um travel to an area that you know we can learn from them and try to bring back some of the things that
they're doing to be successful back to this area. So in talking with Ryan BC with great Rita and Greater Mano Growth, one thing he said we should really hone in on is child care and how they handle child care and the challenges that we've had in um in our region. And so that's
going to be a focal point. So, um, the last time a city representative went was in 2018. That was the former mayor. Um, and so this would be good. Most, um, other agencies send representatives, and I think we should be a part of it. So,
the estimated cost per participant, which includes, um, everything is about $2,000. We do have um, funding in our uh, budget for this. So, with that, just need a motion to approve out of state travel for Mayor Winningington. and Council White and myself.
Look for a motion to approve. Motion a second. Any more discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed. All right. Number four, land use permit for trail.
All right. Amir and city council back in 2015, the city entered into what was called a limited use permit lup with the state of Minnesota department of transportation for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a
non-motorized recreational trail um that's located within Mandot's rightway. And I should pull up on my computer, but in your packet you can see exhibit A. Hopefully it'll be good enough for now. Um there is a drawing that shows it's in
red, but basically the the route goes and I might just pull it up my computer. It's what goes along by Casey's um and Highway 14 and then there's the pond back there and then also um it goes a little bit further if you've ever been
on it um underneath the um the bridge and yeah over overpass. Just going to try to pull this up. Sorry. Then it just stops onto the highway. So mile and a half.
Yep. I can't do this now. Now I got pressure on me. Okay. Um let's see if I can pull this up. It might be a little bit easier to see here. So anyways, basically what this does is so it was a 10 minute or
10year agreement and it's up for um expiration or renewal and so MDOT has sent us an amendment and basically what that would do it would allow the continued use and maintenance of the recreational trail by the city. Um the city would have the option to mow a
grass path around the pond which would enhance the trails usability and provide um you know just another low cross lowcost recreational benefit to the community. Um we have in recent years talked about trying to acquire a parcel that's just south of the pond uh area so
that there would be a place for people to park and have access. Um but that has not moved forward. Um I did ask mindot about well what happens if uh you deem the trail to be in need of you know resurfacing work uh what um you know the
city can't afford it what's you know how does that process work and they said basically um it would be you know if there's a hazard to the users of the trail we would have to fix something but other than that you know the city's going to have to just make
sure we try to maintain it and I think really the biggest maintenance right now is um just the brush around the trail and encroaching onto the trail. Um so one thing too I talked with Andrew about
is that um right now the city is not mowing around the pond. Um and there is uh permission we would have permission to do that. So it's something that Andrew and I have talked about. Um but there would be some trees and um other brush that would need to be removed. So,
it would take some time and effort, but it's definitely doable. Um, and would be a nice um I think asset for community members in this area that want to go down there and and fish. Just trying to pull this up. Obviously
an F-150 fits on it. It's not. So like right now it it's very overgrown. Um we used to be able to get down there with trucks no problem. know, you know, we've trimmed them up to the
point of like, you know, so we can get through there, but um like this morning we drove through there and just between like Casey's and where the railroad crosses the trail, there's 50 dead
big dead oak trees back there that you know, so and they're all on the highway side of of the trail And so it's kind of a big project so to speak too.
Here's that here's the picture now. So, like right now you can go, you know, out here, but this area right here is not being mowed. But that would be a really nice addition for residents to be able to have that if anybody wanted to access it
off of, you know, if they biked over here and were able to walk their bike around here. It'd be safer than having to go down by Casey's and then, you know, over here and get on that trail and go around. So, and I don't know if people can park along um CASA 17 out
there. I don't know if that's allowed or not. I've seen vehicles parked out there before, but it's not allowed. Okay. It's It's not permitted. Just because it happens, it's not per Yeah. This right here, it's an old homestead, right?
And they can't park along Kasa 17. They're not allowed to do that. No, I just see an occasional car sometimes and I'm like, "Oh, I bet they went fishing or something." You know, they they've cut through there. Yeah. Yeah.
But I think it's a huge asset for the community. So anyways, I guess the purpose of today's um your um consideration today is just to go ahead and renew the LUP for another 10 years. If you don't do it, we lose it
completely. We have to rip up the hard surface trail at our cost and basically abandon any access rates to it. So we really I don't think want to do that right now. A motion. Have a first, second,
and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? All opposed? All right. I think the only thing left is a motion to adjurnn. A motion. Second.
We got a first and a second. All right. We're done. Thanks everybody. I know that was a hard process and it's not over. So I had you guys did something. Who's where's
the liability fall when somebody falls in the pond and drowns? Right. And then explain the explain the limited permit. What does that
Yep. We would just have act. Is this still on it? Bas see if it works. No. Is it working? Okay. So, basically with the limited use permit, it's just giving us an easement to have a trail there. We're not We don't own It's not affecting citizens to use the
trail as a use. Yeah. So, we don't own the So, if you look up on the map, that whole area that says right away in the pond, we don't own that. Mindot is basically by doing this permit just giving us um a limited use permit if we want to go in there and mow. Right now, another
walking trail, non-motorized. Yep. Yeah. Yep. And and if we don't sign it, then we have to we have to remove Right. Right. But I would highly recommend and I know I've talked to my son, he's 11, that he go down with an
adult. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes.