Thank you. That's good. It'll be official tomorrow. and start. We don't know. That's what we're worried about. All right, it looks like it's six o'clock, so we're going to get started.
We're going to start with the pledge. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All
right. Carrie, would you do the roll call? >> Mr. Steinberg >> here. >> Mrs. Rorich >> here. >> Mr. White >> here. >> Mr. Lewis >> here. >> Mayor Winningington >> here. I think uh we'll look for an approval of the minutes or not the minutes. Sorry,
we're past that. Approval of the agenda for today. >> A motion. >> I'll second. We got a first and second. All in favor? >> All opposed? All right, we're going to go right into the public hearing here.
So, just a couple quick announcements. Um, if you would like to speak, come up to the podium. Um, state your name and your address. And then also, we're going to give you three minutes because we might have a lot of comments. We want to make sure that we get through everyone. So, um, I'd like to kind of for the
people at home, if we can kind of keep the the talk out of the gallery down, that would be great. You know, if you would like to, you know, come up and and talk those kind of things. Um, we are going to try to time it just so we kind of be fair. Um, so we'll let you know when you're getting close to your three
minutes. So, um, I think we'll go ahead and get started. So, first one. Anybody want to be first? First, last, or middle? I'm Mike Genszel. Uh 60374,
224th Lane. I'm approximately 2 miles down County Road 27. to me. Uh, this D that's being, you know, brought up, it doesn't really address the problem at
56. You're pushing try and push traffic down to 27 or go up 12, but people don't like going up 12 already for whatever reason. I don't understand that. That's a great road. But I I really think the interchange if that
was a high tea there with the way the city has grown to the south. Yes, it's grown some to the east, but it also in the past 10 years has grown quite a bit towards the Mano. And and I would assume you're going to attempt to continue to grow towards Mano as well, rather than
just let Mano come and take you guys' east or west side over. Um that would be a more central corridor. the going up to to 27, it'd be central
in the year 2060, maybe 2050. I mean, it's yes, you're growing that way, but you're not growing that way super fast. So, I just I I think the D is a poor choice.
uh they don't really have a choice for for leaving that intersection alone taking and fixing Highway 60 and fixing you know just a high te but I I really think you took them two parts out of it you might solve three4 your problems
right there so I that would be my suggestion just that it's not going to be as usable as as one of these other ones is in the near future and solving the problems you have. You're still going to have the people
doawling on Highway 14 here off of 56. If you're going to put that interchange in, just cut off 56, shut down Casey's, you know, and move it or whatever. Just there's no reason to even have that there. So, thank you. >> Thank you.
Anyone else? Chief Simpson. >> Hello. Vern Simpson, uh, Eagle Lake Fire Department and 164 Creek Side Court. Um, of all the options I was looking at here, um, I know they put a lot of time into the studies. Um, I think of what
they have laid out here with this option D, if it would was to include the high te would probably be the best of the options that I see. Otherwise, the rest of them I don't really see as being feasible. As far as um from an emergency
standpoint, um there's even with uh option D, there's still a lot of um roads that that will be um cut off, I guess, would be best way to put it. Um which would um restrict if not um
um hinder add a lot of add a lot of time to to our response times for a lot of these residences. especially as you get east of town. Um, I don't mind. Um,
so, excuse me. Um, there's there's a lot of different residences that I've noticed. Um, especially um, uh, here to the west. If you take that intersection being cut off completely there at um at
uh 596. Um so now that they have those tanks removed over there, there's there is more room for growth to the west. Um there is still a pipeline there, but um that intersection was cut off a number
of years ago as far as being able to get across there. um without being able to access to the north off of that intersection there. That is a very large area that we would be restricted from from the fire department. The the only roundabout way to get back there would
cause enough um time loss to where it could be catastrophic, I think, would be the best way to put it. Um so there is I there isn't going to be a perfect way to solve this problem. Um we have to adapt
and overcome with the uh with the growth of the area. Um this city is just going to continue to grow and with that we're going to have growing pains. I just hope that we can all come to a conclusion that's going to work best for
the citizens and for the responsibil 60374 224th Lane Madison Lake. So I am Mike's wife. We live two miles north of 14. And so right now that intersection with the J turns, it has gotten safer.
It's been changed three times in the last six years. And by the time we get used to it, it's changed again. And by putting in a full interchange there, ignoring what's going on at Casey's and then making another just the other
axis being at 12, it's going to take the traffic that Highway 14 built as a bypass. It's going to bring it right back into Eagle Lake. not all of it, but you're still going to have people having to utilize local roads inside of town.
When you've got kids that are walking to school, you've got people taking walks, you've got people on bikes. Um, with development south of town, you have more people that have been, you know, crossing streets. And I know
pedestrian safety has been something that's been talked about on Parkway and on Agency Street. And that by funneling traffic through town versus addressing something like Casey's when you're likely going to see more development in that area. Just doesn't seem to make a
whole lot of sense to me because by funneling more traffic down 27, we're going to see more problems out there. Maybe that's not a city problem, but it's going to be a problem for the county. And it just doesn't seem like
creating another problem while ignoring a problem, it doesn't make any sense. Thank you. >> Anyone else like to speak? I know I could count on you, Brooke.
uh Brookwalk 200 Lake View Drive. I have been a part of the EDA 10 years. Um we've always kind of focused on growing towards Mano going east. And if we ignore the problems we
have at Casey's right now and put in a right in right out, that is not going to solve any problems there is. It's going to create more. We want to remember, we want to grow Eagle Lake, right? What was it 10 years ago? We were the second fastest growing community.
Um, it's going to continue to grow. I have full faith in that. And I don't want to cut off the accessibility by Casey's. Um, right in right out is not the right answer. It should be the high tea. I believe if anything, um, coming
from a development and growing and there are problems there. So ignoring it right now is not the key. And I got to agree with Bernie. You got to think of the safety. And that is not thinking of the safety and getting to people having problems. So
I just please look at other options because this is not the right one for our community. Thank you. >> Anyone else? I was set up for a 4 hour meeting tonight. So
>> yeah. >> Uh hi Christine here 400 Thomas Drive. I'd like to appreciate um that those of you who have been paying attention to the people who have been speaking but as a clinical social worker I've also been watching the people who have not been paying attention. So city council
members please please I'd like you to do that. Okay. Um, couple things. One is I I'm guessing because I asked Jennifer earlier today, how much is Eagle Lake going to be responsible for paying for this? And Jennifer said about a third. And so my
next question was where's the money going to come from? And Jennifer said probably grants through the federal government and state government. I'd like to talk to the city council about how long did it take us to get an allocation for our water treatment. How
many years did that take? How many years is this going to take for Eagle Lake to raise the money to be afforded? And how much are you going to ask us tax people who own property to pay for this in the long run? And Jennifer said, "Nope, not going to ask for that, but will you
eventually because this isn't going to happen right away." I don't agree with this plan unless you do the long range of it because that needs to be there because again it needs to be there for safety. And if you really are talking about
increasing our um city to about 8,300 people in the next x number of years, then we need two entrances and not one. So, let's not sell ourselves short and let's do what's right to begin with. But also, let's be realistic about how long
it's going to take this city to come to the attention of the federal government to ask for funds and how much how long is it going to take us to get state funds? Because again, I go back, it's taken five or six years to us to get
state funds allocated to us for our water treatment. And that needs to be taken care of first along with other road repairs and other things. So this does not become a priority for me. Other things become a priority. >> Thank you.
>> Anyone else? >> Yes, please. 328venue. Um, I would first like to thank Angie, Ryan, people that were here answering my questions during the open house. I really appreciated
learning more than I would some. But what I did want to bring up or two final thoughts that I had is in past meetings it said that the funding with the high tea is
probably not possible. Um I am thinking in my way of thinking is why can't that be our possibility and look for that funding and make a final decision at that point instead of making our decision up. Um I think we need rethink
of what is the cart and what is the horse. Um and then my other thought is and someone else mentioned that there are um been recent upgrades to Highway 14 over the past several years. Um
putting in acceleration lanes, taking acceleration lanes out, putting in J turns. My comment here is not to insult anybody, but to me, we're throwing away money by not getting this right. And
what I would like to see is let's look out 56 years. What is our plan for this region, not just Eagle Lake, but for the entire region, and get it right this time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Any other residents want to? You only get half the time. >> No, no, I'm just Go ahead. >> Have any of you looked at the governor's plan for transportation in the state of Minnesota? >> I have not.
>> Have Beth, have you? >> Anthony, have you. Anthony, have you? Uh, >> Garrett, have you? Why not? Because there is a public plan out there that the governor put forth and paid for a large task force and it includes this
region and it includes Highway 14 and y'all haven't looked at it. Y'all haven't done your due diligence. >> Anyone else? Okay. Right. >> Mike again. Um, as I was looking at your
charts out here, I I was took note of your the public outreach part where we had that meeting at Eagle Lake at the nest or the Legion, I guess it was. Um, and you look at where we placed our little potatoes
and what the was the one that everybody says does not meet my expectations or will not meet my needs. And what one meets my needs the most? It was A was meets my needs the most on that one.
And A was the one on the other chart. The only time that the the meets my needs the most went up on any of the other ones was when the outreach was at like high, which to me says it's not the
people. community. I would look at those real close because every one of them that looks at our needs says we like A, not D. If I was to read into that a little bit, not even just trying, I'd
say the community hates D. No one voted for it. It was does not meet or meets my needs the least or whatever and then like a big block that says doesn't. So just just an observation looking at
your chart. >> Perfect. Thank you, >> Randy. You want to I think we're at the point where we can have county or or >> Simpson again. Um somebody else mentioned the J turns in town. I um I
was trying not to speak to that directly because the J turns eventually uh need to go away and no matter which one of these um plans they come up with those J turns will be gone. Um, none of the numbers that were shown, although I
appreciate the study and and the work behind it, none of those numbers that were shown had any current crash statistics from 2022 to current. Um, a lot of those numbers that you looked at
were prior to the J turns and not including what has happened since the J turns. And although the J turns have decreased the amount of serious and fatal crashes, they have not come anywhere close to eliminating them. And
um actually the numbers are quite skewed from what I could tell because a lot of the crashes that are happening um are not being fully reported by um say our fire department not getting paid to some of them. So then they don't logged fully
into our record. So, I couldn't bring in numbers from our department that would actually show the actual incidents at those intersections to to give you guys a number um to show that those accidents are still h happening at those J turns and the severity of them is still pretty
extreme. So, I just wanted to make sure I pointed out that um although out of looking through all these different plans and seeing which one I could kind of agree with the most um the reason why I'm going with D is um a the high the
high te um but b it does eliminate a lot of those um potentials for those serious crashes. Um I like I mentioned before, we got to grow with things. We're going to have some restriction. um unfortunately, but um we've wasted a lot
of tax dollars over the years. As um Mr. Rous was nice enough to point out, if we had done it right the first time, the money that we saved would be enough to do this project. So, um let's let's get it right. And um the biggest thing to
keep in mind is one life is worth way more than the 56 million it would cost to do this project. Thank you. >> Hi, I'm G Lapring 326 Falcon Run. Uh we've been here in Eagle Lake since November 22. We're right off that 598th.
We frequent that that Casey's J turn, that lovely J Turner. We take the roundabouts through town. I think those roundabouts are only going to get busier and we'll have to address that at some point too. It came to my attention that 15 to 20 years ago 598
uh in a study done by Baldman Bank anticipated that that would be a four-lane thoroughfare that would loop around a mano. I think Baldman Bank was wrong about that. That's why we have that ugly burm off to the east side of 598 as you go further south. I think
changes and mistakes are expensive and that the council really needs to in the state, the county, etc. really need to take into account is Eagle Lake going to be growing closer to Mano where our school districts are where most of our shopping is. Are we going to be pushing
people further to the east? I think that would also hurt the Mano area public schools. So that's all I got. Take that in consideration. I think uh Bolan M maybe had expanded their thoughts a little bit too far when we need to focus
on a priority of what are we going to do on that 598 and Casey's interchange then focus on what does the future look like as we move further east. Thank you. Anyone else? Ren, would you like to come up and if
you have anything to say? >> Yeah. Well, probably both of you. Who wants to go first? Angie or Ryan? >> I'd be happy to answer any questions the council has. >> Perfect. >> Ryan Jones County Engineer. answer question.
>> Perfect. I think one other question was I must you know the assumption I made and you know the due diligence you know issue was is real but you you know you were reviewing that the governor's proposal
um for the state transportation as you guys were making these plans correct or no? >> Yeah. Um, and I maybe would let Greg Oris is here in the building too and maybe even more familiar with the governor's uh funding, but I can tell you the outlook for uh transportation
funding in the next bianium is not promising whatsoever. It's rather grim in all honesty. We're seeing cuts at the state at about every level and um honestly anticipating likely a decline in transportation funding and sources that the county is accustomed to receiving, especially through local
bridge dollars um local road improvement program grants. I really can't speak uh with respect to the different large state and federal grants that a project like this would have to compete with um as far as what the what the forecasted dollars are. But I can tell you that in
my in my legislative engagement. There's not a lot of hope again for that coming. >> What What is the time frame are we looking at or you know >> when we first started talking about it was probably 5 to 10 to 15 years. >> Yeah. For project delivery of something
of this magnitude. This isn't something we're going to start building next year. There's a lot of very time consuming steps that have to happen along the way. Um development of environmental documents typically will take a couple of years. In addition to that, project development, design, and things of that
would have to happen in parallel. So, you're probably looking at at least three years there. For assuming funding in and of itself is a tremendous um tremendous endeavor for one or all of these projects when you're talking about 20 to$30 million project, let alone
looking at trying to do both of them at at 50 million. Um I I think I'd probably defer to MINDOT on what it's like to try to get grants on the trunk highway system, but I know uh from a county standpoint, we have to have a pretty significant mega project and and even
then we've had very limited success competing with larger regions um and larger projects for discretionary federal grants. the county and the state have really focused on option D. Can you kind of go
through the process of what you guys are thinking and why that's kind of where you guys have landed? >> Yeah, I think um the premise of the county's position is we evaluated all of these different alternatives that was then paired down to the four that were presented at the previous meeting and
then paired down to option D is in conversations with the county board. I think there's some concern about the proximity of 12 interchange with US Highway 14 and then constructing one at 56. And I think
the situation, the reality of this as the county sees it is there's a likelihood that initially it's going to be hard just to get one. We think there's a possibility down the road, you know, as the community grows, you certainly could pursue additional funding, but we still have that problem
with 27. And we have to not only consider the Eagle Lake city traffic, but also regional traffic coming in from the lakes region, traffic coming in from the market needs as well. So we feel we at the county felt that
option B suits the county's uh larger regional needs. >> Anybody else from the council have questions for Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Angie, do you have anything for us or
just >> if you have questions? >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. >> I really was set up to have a lot more comments from the So, >> right. Um, do we close the public hear? How do
what's the next step in this process? >> Um, I think the next step did you open the public hearing? Otherwise, it's more just a a formality I guess if you will, but just to have discussion next by the council. So, you could just formally close the public input portion and now
move on to your deliberation portion. >> We're going to need a motion to close the public hearing then. Sure. >> I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll second. >> First and second. Any more discussions? >> All in favor? >> I.
>> All opposed. >> All right. Kind of like to go down the line to kind of have each council person kind of let us know what we're thinking. >> We always start with Beth. Let's start
with Garrett this time. Yeah, I think that I agree with all of the comments that were brought up tonight and I had a conversation earlier uh basically involving County Road 56. Um I think that that I don't think I know that that
was the uh impetus for the traffic study was the stuff that happened at County Road 56 with the J turns and there was a severe fatality at 27 as well which was not good. uh from that map. Um but I
would just I I tend to agree with the city with the city residents here and county residents that have brought up the keeping of uh County Road 56 and Highway 14 at as a
high T. um with Eagle Lake growing really historically growing to the west. Uh that's pretty much been the trajectory here for a long time. Uh just most recently with the Sham edition going to
the uh east, nothing really has been built beyond agency uh to the east. So the access point beyond agency to me as a citizen of Eagle Lake is sort of a moot point. So, I'm always going to be in favor of something at Highway 14 and
56. Um, I also see that as being the most prime area for future commercial growth in those corn fields that are along Lay Avenue on Highway uh that border the corridor of Highway 14. So I,
you know, I really have a strong inclination to just really be a proponent of the high tea at County Road 56 and uh 14. That's where I'm at >> with Yeah. And to add a little one more
thing, just just keeping in mind again really where the growth is and where the population center is and where people are ultimately going to here in here in Eagle Lake, we're ultimately going to Mano. Uh, and as Garrett said with all the roundabouts and not that the
roundabouts are bad, but there are direct we have a direct shot with Highway 14. It's a wonderful highway. Um, and I take it with the J. I use caution. Uh, but I think closing that intersection
would really stifle any future growth for Eagle Lake. Uh, and and I've talked to the land owner of the land up there. Uh, you know, and I he didn't really give me a response too much. Uh, but I
know him well enough in the sense that if that was my land, I would be up here yelling in that podium saying that I want this to be developed for the future of Eagle Lake. Uh, and I understand studies are studies and things have to be done and I'm I'm not privy to the
governor's highway 14 plan. I should research that. Um, but you know, I'm just coming at it from a practical point of being a citizen of Eagle Lake and living here for 34 years. Um, just really, you know, knowing that Mano is
our neighbor and that's really what Eagle Lake is heavily reliant upon and all of the citizens that live in Eagle Lake are reliant upon that population center. With that, I'll pass. Councilman Lewis.
>> So, I'm not overly enthusiastic about option D either. Um, I live off 598. Getting rid of the 598th access or just kind of, you know, cutting it in half is definitely detrimental to me. Um, from talking to the state and the
county, options A, B, and C just don't seem realistic. It seems like option D is really all we have. Um, so our options, from how I understand it, is it's option D or it's nothing. I don't really like nothing either because I think 27 is incredibly dangerous. We
seem to have fatalities there every year. Um, something needs to be done to just do nothing at 27. I'm not a big fan of either. Um, you know, I I wish there was a way we can get funding for both. Um, because I
think having the high tea there would be great for us. It just doesn't seem realistic. From talking to the people who are in the know that with the funding, it doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Um, but from talking to people, it doesn't seem like it's it would never happen either. It could
happen down the road. You know, if there's a need for it, it could be revisited. We could get a high te there. Um, but again, we're getting back to the options of it's it's option D or it's nothing. Do we really want to do nothing and just kind of wait and see where it goes? Um, from hearing people in the uh,
you know, out here, it it seems like we're okay with that. And if that's how people want, I'm okay. You know, I I'm I'm with you guys. U, if if we're okay with doing nothing, then I can go that way. But my personal opinion is I think D is is better than nothing.
>> Thank you, Councilman White. Yeah, it um it goes back to the the last meeting we had and I think I asked the question of um what intersection is used most by Eagle Lake people and it came back as 56. Um
and and if you live here, you know that I mean you you use it every day. Everybody does. Um a majority of us do. Just like Garrett said, you know, we're moving west. Um, which is why I was a little confused on why we're, you know, the county uh was
focused on 27 u from our perspective because, you know, with being a person that uses that 56 every day, um, and you talk to the people in Eagle Lake, um, the number one intersection is 56. And
that's the focus I think we should have. Um, I know that's not a broad, you know, that's not all the county needs. Um, I I get it. It has to be collaborative, but um, we get voted in by the people of
Eagle Lake and and from what I'm hearing, um, not only here today, but from conversations that that we have privately, um, County Road 56 is the problem. Needs to be fixed sooner rather than later. Um, and that's where I stand
as well. Um, and you know, it it came down to dollar amounts, too, which I find funny, um, that we're putting dollar amounts on on people's lives essentially. Um, I I I mean, stuff costs
money. Um, and if we want it to be fixed and done the right way, it's going to cost money. Um, and that's just the honest to God's truth. So, if it were up to me, I'd like to fix both intersections, but um if we had to only do one, uh I think we need to focus on 56.
>> For the sake of not echoing everything all of these guys say and those that have been part of these meetings, um it we've kind of said the same thing over and over every time. Um some of the things that have been brought up again from last meetings to this is is the numbers. The daily
volumes, they don't lie. That that's there. Those are hard numbers and it shows 56 as council member White said is the heavily used. Um I've been told from many people saying hey once it we have too many accidents especially fatalities the next option um specifically when
we're talking 56 is we'll shut it down. Um, selfishly, when we're looking at Eagle Lake, our focus is on Eagle Lake residents and what we our movement is, right? Um, the stats show our main movement is either, you know, 17 into Mano or 56. All the
problems currently, most of the problems, I should say, are out on CASA 17. If we're shutting one down, that should be the one that's shut down. That one's more dangerous than accident wise the last two years from what I've been told. um than what 56 is.
So, is that the way to go? No. Because now everybody that we're saying is bringing them in from the lakes or bringing farm to table gets shut off. Well, the numbers show that that's half the amount of people at most. Then what use the other ones? So, if we're wanting to make a decision there of let's go right in right out on 56. Well, why
don't we go right in right out on 17 then and make 56 the way it should have been made day one. Um concerns on right in right out. We're trying to minimize taxpayers what they're having to pay. But we need to get more business access in here. We need to grow that portion of
Eagle Lake, which is really hard to do and will only make it more complicated if we shut 56 access, full access down. Um, yes, right in, right out. We'll still get access in. I I would still use it every day. Not going into town, though. Um, but it will limit a lot of
them. Getting donuts in the morning with my kids at Casey's wouldn't be as convenient and probably be skipped. I'd probably do something in Mano. So that little bit here and there, those dollars do add up. Um, so I and frankly I think the EDA is in agreeance on it. It's hard
to get businesses to come into that area if there's not full access there. Um, looked at the public input number or data too. Again, data doesn't lie. The public said no to D for the most part that it doesn't meet or um, and A said
partially meets or does meet. So sometimes I feel like we're kind of getting or I I feel I'm not going to say we I feel a little bit bullied maybe of we don't have money or this is what we want to do because this is more of the county. This is more financially
responsible. This is whatever. We're going with D. We're doing this. Even though all data says the opposite of D. All data is saying we don't want that. It's saying the numbers aren't there, but we're throwing all the money to a intersection that doesn't add up to
public input and travel numbers. Um, so I'm struggling with that whole piece. Um, I I been told that nope, no one, you know, it's not being as used. Everybody's taking 17. Well, they're taking 17 because they're scared of those that are going that way are scared of the J turn. I frankly take it every
day, several times a day. Have no issue with it, but I also have no issue with someone honking at me if I don't go as fast as they want to go. So I don't have an issue. I think if we switch it to a high te you will see some of those people come back to utilize 56 because it is safe. Um it will be safe. I've
talked to the engineer and saying okay how how are we making that under piece safe so that you don't have the off traffic getting you know hit with on. So we've had those conversations. It can be very safe. We'll get people back. Um, so for me it's I don't want to not do
anything because I agree that 17 and 27 is dangerous. But based off of what Mandot County, state, whoever is saying is if it gets too dangerous, we shut it down. Well, if 17 is too dangerous, shut that down and let's fix 56, which is
hitting Eagle Lake residents more. massive inconvenience, but you're talking 1300 people that are taking a left turn out here every morning that are inconvenienced versus 900 at most that are trying to get out on 17.
So, I don't know. I think my thing is is a um if it if we if it's between A and D, my option is A where there is still movement both east and west on CASA 1714 um but full access on the 5614
intersection. We cannot lose that movement on that that intersection. All right, I guess it's me now. Um I I I echo pretty much everything the council has said. Um concept A, you know, obviously it's the the higher price one.
It gives us the the safety that and the movement that we've been talking about from 56 and residentially. And it also for me I kind of split it into two sections, right? How how the residential how people are moving, you know, from resident to to those kind of and the
other one is business, right? So the business side with with concept A, I'm still concerned about, you know, development, you know, we've been working on that for 20 years and we just have not had any luck. So I'm still concerned about that. You know, obviously right in right out would
totally decimate that that possibility. So that would would most likely turn into something else as opposed to um businesses. I do like the other end of a on 27. I still think we need some some connectivity there. One is, you know,
that that movement from north to south and it also gives us it accesses it gives us some more another place to put businesses, right? So, if we have a interchange out there, some type of interchange um you know, maybe we can lure some things out there. We don't we
don't cut off that north to south, you know, coming from the you know, 27. So, you know, I'm looking at A as well. D, you know, I do like D as well. You know, the biggest drawback of that. I love the full interchange at County Road 27
because I think it opens up us um more on that east side. And I also think, you know, we have been moving east and west, but getting this kind of settled down, I think we can plan better and make a plan. You know, I do think we're headed east. You know, we only have another
mile or so west to go and then we're going to have to start going east and south. Um, it also opens up that northern corridor above 14 for other businesses. You know, we've got that kind of zoned right now for light industry and things like that. Could we get some things in there that can impact
our tax base um and and contribute there? So, you know, I'm kind of torn between DNA. That's kind of interesting. Um but to to do both, you know, both residential movement and access and safety and also
opening up kind of that other section uh for businesses, you know, I think it's a um so because B doesn't, you know, takes away that main corridor that we hope to to maintain and grow. Any other questions?
It's kind of an abrupt >> this is a point that I just like to make. Um, and I it it's not an engineered educated point that I'm going to make, but I've brought up before about the other intersections along
Highway 14 such as Byron with the two stop lights. And I know that stop lights are bad. Um, and I just want to make the point that if you look towards Rochester and you see all the growth that happens in Byron and Dodge Center and the cities
in that area, that could be stuff that we have in Eagle Lake. I see a lot of commercial growth in in both of those towns. Um, yeah, Dodge Center, Byron. Um, and yeah, I I understand there's stop lights there, and I'm not proposing
to put stop lightss in, but I I think that there's heavy intersections that have heavy traffic that have even worse options than what we're dealing with here. So, I think that just the access is really my main point. Uh, and I think
from what I hear from everyone in the room too, that Eagle Lake, I mean, I I really want to stand by access at 56. And that's and personally, I mean, if it was a stoplight to keep the thing open, I would be a proponent of that, even
though I know that everyone in mind will laugh at me for saying stop lightss or whatever. Um, that's just my opinion. I'm not I'm a piano player. I'm not a traffic analysis person. Um, but I think
that, you know, all these options, you know, J turns, R cuts, T high T's, you know, like I mean, what can we just do to have the best access for Eagle Lake and my concern is
Eagle Lake? No, I think the for me the best accessed is D plus you know what we have here with the the future because it gives us full access east, west, north, south, you know that's with the high and also
the full interchange obviously that is well beyond even the cost of the high cost of a um so and knowing you know I think Ryan hit it on the head right So it's one thing is saying, you know, this
is what we want to do. Now comes the hard part, right? So now we send, you know, the county folks out and say this is what we want to do. We agree on that. Then you got to find $56 million in a probably a bianm budget that's going to be decreasing at least for the next bianium if not the the one after that.
So you so it's it's it's concept versus reality versus funding, right? So, how do we how do we get to the point that we don't we can't do nothing. I don't think we can just say we're not going to do anything because I think eventually it erodess over time,
you know, the um the J turn degrades and, you know, we have we lose that whole interchange. Now, we're all at 27 and we're all not happy about that because that's even less safe than than the 56 um interchange. So, so I think do nothing
is not an option. I think we, you know, sounds like, you know, the majority of the council like a um but I think that comes with but going through the reality of funding, I think
we we landed D. Um, >> I think D is still unacceptable unless it's left as is on 56. And I and I say that with respect that nothing's going to be safe. Nothing's going to be perfect, right?
Until we all change everybody habit of driving and distracted or whatever. The intersections are confusing. So, it can be perfect and it still won't be safe, right? But >> there's human involved. >> Yeah. Right. D just D with right in
right out um for Eagle Lake is in my opinion a not acceptable option then I think it needs to be left we'd be better off doing nothing on that intersection than something um >> well we know that the J turn has a limited lifespan right so whether that's
5 years or 10 years because I came home early you know crossing 14 at at at 17 at 3:30 I had to wait quite a long time So it's you know traffic is is increasing. So that means that the J
turn life is shortened right. So >> so selfishly from Eagle Lake I'm saying most if not you know 80% of our traffic and kind of throwing a number out with not having that exact but is heading west.
My number one is 56. That's where my priority goes. But I I absolutely hear council member Lewis saying 56 is an issue because it or not 56, sorry. Um CASA 17 is an issue. >> Um
can I just reiterate like again I'm not totally sold on D. I just you know I guess for you that don't know I'm I work for the county. I'm a deputy sheriff here. I I respond to these types of calls. Safety is kind of on my priority here. I just man I would just hate to
not do what we should be doing with 27 and just have just safety issues. I mean we all I think if you travel that you know it's not safe. I mean there's flashing stop signs try to help. There's those you know those sticks with the reflective on
top. There's like what 2J turns there. It's it's not it's not safe. Like we need to do something with that. And I do think it does have I do think it is good for Eagle Lake as well from a residential and a commercial standpoint. I mean, I don't want to get
rid of 598 either and make it a right turn right out, but 27 needs something done with it. It is dangerous. And I I don't think we could have it both ways either. I mean, I would love to just at least just keep the J turn at 598 and then still do D with 27, but
from what I understand, we can't even do that because that's going to hurt the safety score. That's going to hurt our funding chances. That might be dead in the water as well just by keeping the J turn there. I I'm not I'm not a fan of D either, but I I feel like it's better than than
nothing. Anybody wants to respond? I think it's just frustrating to know what is right and what is feasible because I think we all know what's right and we've known what's right for years. Um what's financially feasible is
something totally different. And then to when we add that little nugget of well to get funding we got to shut we got to go right in right out or else we're not going to be scoring high enough um is beyond frustrating because those that live it drive it not saying that the
mind and blow mink and and the county and all those don't but it's done and then project's done and they leave and then we deal with what didn't work um what isn't working. Um, we know it ahead of time, but we can only do what we can
do. Um, and I think that's what's extremely frustrating through all this process is what should be getting done and what will probably get done are so far off. It's just how do we get to the middle portion that's acceptable? No, I agree. Like like I said before,
you know, the ultimate is, you know, full interchange at 27 and a high T at, you know, um 561. For me, that's the most safe. It gives the most movement possibilities for the residents and it also helps us open up
some different sections of the, you know, Eagle Lake to potential business development. Um, I think whatever we choose, I think will help us to kind of determine, you know, if we
choose D or D gets done, you know, we can work through a a strategic plan to grow east. You know, we're growing that way a little bit, we're growing west a little bit, we're going south a little bit. You know, how do we focus? You know, what do we want to do? Um,
it's one of those if money was no factor, if time was no factor, >> you know, I would be retired. Um, >> there's no effective way to slow down,
get them a little closer to the speed limited apparently. effective. >> Would you like Can you come up to the podium and >> No, no, that's way people No. Okay. No, just so people at home can can listen.
No, I think, you know, one is, you know, we've got some great deputies and they're doing what they can to kind of, you know, Blue Earth, you know, I think we've got some of the finest deputies in the state. Um, we're doing what we can there, you know. You know,
but people are people. Unless you put giant speed bumps out there, I don't think you're going to slow them down. We asked Nick to just keep driving around the the J turn. to help slow him down. But he's probably No, it's just nobody can hear you on on
the >> You you have a one of those. >> Uh this is out of order because you closed the public session. So I'm just going to bring that up. Okay. Because I do know way too >> No, we're we're on Okay. >> We're on shaky ground small city. Um there's other things. We have great
deputies. Please let me know. They're great. They're wonderful. They're amazing. Okay. Um, change the speed limit. Change the laws. The deputies enforce the laws. >> Yeah. And I'm going to jump on what Mr. Gunel was just saying. I think he was
not talking about people driving 65 miles an hour at the posted speed limit. I think he was talking about a speed limit change. Probably like like what I was mentioning with the Byron thing. >> They changed it on the other end. Why can't they change it here?
>> Well, I don't know about speed cameras. That's above my pay grade. So, we'll walk through that. >> You need to go to the county and the state and request the speed limit changes. Well, we've we've heard varying
things about that, right? We can change the speed limit. Some people will abide by that. You know, I grew up in Illinois, so when speed limit first went to 65 and trucks were at 55, that created a lot of dangers on the road
because you have that disparity in in speeds. Um, so you know the things that I've been told if you go if you put the speed limits down there'll be some that will
adhere to that most will not. So now you're creating kind of you know some other hazards. So whether that's true or not that's where we're at. Um and that's that's not something Yeah.
It's not something on the agenda for right now, but yes, sir. Brian Hughes live at 110 Plain Street here in Eagle Lake. Been living here since 1970. So, we've seen a lot of changes. I, you know, going to Mano, the J
turnout on 56, crossing 14 is is not the greatest thing in the world. I certainly would like to see that J turn widened a little bit. At least fill in the holes where you turn to go left and if possible maybe pour some concrete and
make a little acceleration lane in that area. The idea that Daryl was saying about slowing the speed down coming down the hill. >> It's extremely hard to know how fast somebody is going. You really can't judge that. And same with 27.
So I think that's a very valid point. But I think addressing, you know, just adding some concrete and an acceleration lane on 14 would be a good step. A simple one thing to do. Maybe on 27
right in, right out. Might handle that for a while, too. So, I think that's basically all I've got to say. >> Thanks, Brian. Mike Denzel
with this whole maple study thing, I know you guys get input, but so does the county and so does the state. Voicing your opinion that you like a doesn't mean that the whole thing goes
that way, does it? I mean, you're not the end all beall on this thing. Doesn't uh Brian and and the county have a a card to put into this and the state puts a card into this and we kind of come to a consensus together
telling them that, hey, our preferred option is A. We like A. You know, preferred we like D2. And I mean that's not even on the board, but we like A. It gives us access. It it it
basically an interchange at at 17. And you get your your high tea at 56. You grow the business Eagle 8. Growing that business Eagle 8, you got to bring in more tax dollars. More tax dollars helps fund this next project. I mean, it's
kind of the the spinning wheel situation. Once you get in motion, it's easier to get. But if we cut it here, motion and it's going to be really hard to get restarted again. So, I just
if you suggest that A or D2 is your preferred, but we'd like to get something out of this. So, don't don't count us out completely. If we have to go D and no one else is going to go along with us and we got to go D, we'd like that better than nothing. Can can
you reiterate that to them instead of just it's a hardcore We're going to give in a D. None of us really like it, but we're gonna we're going to take this better than nothing. That's that's just my question. I don't know how this system works.
>> Well, I'm new to this system as well, so we're kind of working through that. Um, you know, preferably, you know, all three parties are, you know, on the same page. You know, everybody picks A, B, or Z. Um, so, you know, they have their priorities obviously, you know, with the
county. you know, making sure, you know, I have good movement because there's a lot of things that close, you know, in the county, you know, crossroads and things like that. There's a lot of things change outside of just our little two, you know, two mile stretch here. Um, so
that that's I'm their priority is funding. I'm putting words in your mouth, Ryan. Funding and, you know, the movement of of traffic and goods in the county. Um, our priority, you know, like you said, our priority is, you know, what's best for our residents and our, you know, for potential growth and our
business growth, you know, and they may be at odds. Um, so and that's where we are. So, it's kind of awkward at this point. Um, so I don't know do we are we at a point
where we call the the question of what's you know the the >> mayor waiting can I ask question to and it might be to Bolton M or um Ryan maybe you but >> if all of the data whether it's daily volumes whether it's the public input
>> is not favoring inside of D how did What's the push for D from your guys' standpoint? Because I'm hearing the county roads or I'm hearing pricing or I'm doing this, but when we're
looking at hard numbers or I am, I guess it's the daily volume. It's the public input, not the um the life saved, frankly, of making the road safe, not the dollar amount. The dollar amount is yes, it needs to be higher on my list than what it is, but frankly it's it's
low because I want to get it right the first time then have to fix it for the 10th time. So I'm trying to figure out how you got to D and I think I've asked this several times when everything else is showing D is not favorable. >> Yeah, it's a it's a legitimate question.
Um so you know when there is no perfect solution >> that that's the simplest answer. And um you know when we're we're looking at this and trying to find that we can get to a compromise on. And and again, I'm not sure we're there. Um but it it is
trying to find something that um seems like it can it can work from all agencies kind of coming and giving something. Um now what that means is the biggest thing is how do we get an improvement built? How do we get
something that can happen? Now that may mean like I heard your point of where you think you know, where that should be. Um, but what we brought forward with concept D is what's what's that what's that improvement that has a likelihood of being funded. Um, you know, just to
answer a question that came up earlier on, you know, the typical funding award in greater Minnesota is in the range of 20 to30 million from competitive funding sources from federal or state funding. Um, so you know, in that 20 to 20 to $30
million range, that that's this first option of concept D kind of gets us there. Could it be only at a high? It could, but that would that would then not connect the county road network. Um, you know, how we got to concept D was it
kind of checked many boxes with providing access at with an interchange that could support development that could connect um the agricultural areas, the lakes areas, the county road network. It would also, one of the
compromises was also giving some access at County Road 56. It's not full access, but it's some access that wouldn't traditionally be allowed. two interchanges. When you have an interchange at County Road 12 and at the
proposed with D on um 1727, just the proximity, if all things were equal, that right in right out in a perfect scenario wouldn't traditionally be allowed. So that was a compromise that was like, okay, let's make that happen because that access is important to the
community. At least get some access. Um and so recognizing that there is a get good county road network that westerly access to Mano that with 56 only being right in right out you can get that access and connectivity to the
west. Also thinking about you know how the mano growing towards Eagle Lake, Eagle Lake coming towards Mano. Um there are development plans for other connections like Hoffman Road and and Basset Road I think it is that could
connect to the community that also provide a nice roadway network that it wouldn't all need to rely on County Road 17 um for future connections. So, it's kind of a combination of factors that led us to this could provide a good option, but then also that compromise
of, you know, the high tea, there's still value here for the community of Eagle Lake in the future as it realizes its development plans and allow it time to pursue funding for that it. So, it's not a simple answer. It's many factors.
Um and just, you know, to that public input. Yeah, the perfect scenario in an ideal world would be either concept A or D2, which D2 would be a high T and an interchange. So, just for clarity, D2's come up a couple times tonight already.
That's that's what that would be. But it it's many factors and just trying to find that sweet spot of common ground of um access to Eagle Lake, uh financial responsibility, competitiveness with grants. Um uh I think I mentioned Eagle
Lake access, the county road connectivity, the connectivity of the surrounding roadway network, business access, residential growth, all those things came into consideration. Not a simple answer. >> No. still feel, you know, all the
agencies giving a little county, Eagle Lake. Well, Eagle Lake is giving a lot. You know, when you're looking at it, it's making room for the lakes, making room for the county. Okay, we're we're helping them a lot, but our 3,300 residents or 1300 people that travel um
west every day, sorry, you guys are out of luck. So, though, you know, so it's it's giving, but we're compromising the most with minimal in return. And I think that yeah, I I respect the perspective. I think it's just the the
feeling that there is a roadway network there for that access point, >> but I respect the perspective. >> Well, I think all the things that you said about 17 and 27 are true with 56 as well. So, in my mind, I'm just going,
you know, we're I'm we're focused on Eagle Lake. Um, and a lot of those things that you said were true for 56 as well as far as access and people coming from the lakes. You know, all that stuff can still be true on 56. So, I I just I guess I'm just still a little confused
on why we're not I guess we're focused on 56 but not everybody involved in >> I can respect the county being focused on 17 and 27 >> and I hope the county can understand we're focused on 56. Well, I think actually we should be focused on 56
because the whole traffic study was centered around 56. The whole reason the study started was because of Mayor Lisa bringing up this at a council meeting here in this room when she was the mayor. So, whoa. Um,
your phone's underwater. >> Totally missed. So, I mean, I get it that 17 and 27 and the farm tomarket roads and all that kind of stuff makes sense to talk about for long r long range planning. Um, but
I if the traffic study was about the comment that Mayor Lisa made with county road 56, >> I don't see >> study started with fixing that road. It ends with shutting that road down. It started with that and then now we had 10, you know, months of studying and
these beautiful maps and computer work and time and and then it's shutting down 56. I mean, Gensils drive their tractors and I mean, is is a bridge going to help you guys move your combines through there and semi-truckss?
>> It would. I I mean, I'm not going to lie, an interchange there or a is perfectly fine for me, too. would be a great help. It sucks getting on the highway 14, but
since they've closed off that easy left, I don't I can't recall a real accident that's happened there. It just all of our data is too old when we make changes too quick. We got to wait a little bit
and then react. If we're reacting to something that's not actually I know I've asked this before um mainly to I think Scott Thompson when he was always um here too, but you might be able to answer this in a
informal way because we get the data of saying there's this many accidents, we need to shut this, we need to adjust this. Are are there accidents because I know there was a serious one recently out there um in the past year, year and a half, whatever it was. Um, is it human behavior accidents or is it road issue
accidents? And I know the sun comes up at different angles or any of that and that can cause it, but fixing a road and human behavior doesn't change, we're no further ahead. Um, so are some of these accidents that are happening, the road change even going to help?
>> Take one hat off and put another hat on real quick, but and this is all anecdotal just from my experience. You know, we get driving complaints every once in a while from people who just get, I guess, confused. Whether it's from the roadway or human error, I don't really know. And they'll go down the
wrong direction on a J turn or something. I mean, it doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen. And that's the ones that are reported to us. There's probably many more that don't get reported. And I just feel like it's just a matter of time before we have another serious crash there. Um because I like I
said, I mean, I hear that the J turn at 598 is is bad and dangerous. Well, 27 has two J turns and a middle cutout. It's I I think it's much worse. And to me, the safety aspect is the most important. You know, I have young kids.
They'll be driving still a while from now, but still soon too soon. But I wouldn't want them using 27. I would prefer they use something else. And that's that's where my thing kind of comes down to. I don't want people to think that I'm ignoring
people's opinions. I they're very valid. I like to said I live off 598. Getting rid of that westbound turn, it would hurt me, too. I mean, I I I get it. It's not because I don't I don't take it. I just don't care. I do care. But I I feel like when it comes to the
safety aspect of it and the reality of the funding from what I hear repeatedly that D is the most realistic option, I I I feel like that's where my priority lies is the safety at 27.
Can I just make some simple comment? You guys start with cutting the grass or the weeds and the media. Start there first. >> Well, we don't have a control over that. That's way out of our scope. But >> perfect.
>> Totally understand. And I think that's something we'll have to talk to. We're working through this issue. You know, I'm where I'm at is D, right? So A is
I don't think A will get funded. You know, I I think realistically um D gives us the most options of business growth and and other growth. you know, like Angie was talking about, we're going to have other options going west.
You know, hopefully because we're still, you know, we're still talking eight to 15 years out to where, you know, we potentially would be doing this work. So, we're hoping Hoffman inches closer, you know, other roads from the west inch closer so we can grow along those
arteries. Um, but I think D gives us the best business growth or the able to bring in larger businesses because of the that full interchange. Um,
>> where would it >> with D? Where would the businesses go? >> Well, I think there's a lot of opportunity north, you know, that we've already annexed in. We we just had a huge project that was going to happen out there that never came to a reality. I mean, a huge project that didn't come
to a reality. >> Well, yeah. Not that >> I mean, I don't know if land owners are going to sell. We have land. >> We've been trying to sell the property, you know, off of 598 for over 20 years, and we we've sold two lots. So,
you know, potato potato kind of thing as well. Um, my peers. I live out on 560 just to be sure. I look at this and I keep thinking you've got casings. I'm just going to
use casings this example. You've got wide streets coming in there. You've got wide traffic flow. When you switch that to 17 and start bringing traffic through, what are you going to do? street that are there, them streets are
small and you start bringing full size semis through there and everything, your business just went down the hill. So look at that too. I think uh Garrett Lapring again on Falcon Run, I think there's a lot of
narrative as far as if we build it, they will come. I think we should be building it where people are coming to. And so I don't think that we should necessarily be solely focused on the business side of things. Um there's a lot of land between here and Mano yet. So the pitch
for Eagle Lake has to be real. So I think that needs to be taken into consideration. In business, if you build it and expect them to come, you lose. John, I heard you just say D is your option. >> You've heard from this audience. D is not the option. You've heard from
someone of your city council. D is not the option. You and Jennifer go and represent us at city and at county and state. >> Why? And then I do have to leave because I'm late for another meeting. Why are you going to go and represent us and say
D is our option? Because that's not what you heard, John. >> Well, no. D is my option until the the council makes a decision and that's what I go forward with. >> Well, you've heard from a couple council people that D is not the option. You've heard from this audience. D is not the option. >> I totally agree. And we're going to be
taking a a vote soon on that >> and I'm leaving. >> Thank you. Aron Ganzel again. Um I respect uh Councilman Lewis's perspective on the 27
17 intersection, but I want to share the fact that since it's been changed to that. I know people may not like the J turns. It feels so much safer now. It was 2022 when that young lady lost her life and it was because somebody ran the stop sign.
that stop sign was taken away and it was closed. Since then, I can come up to take a right turn. I can see and as long as the weeds are trimmed down, I can see clearly to the left to the east to safely make a turn and I don't have to worry about somebody making an illegal
U-turn anymore. Um, what myself and my kids have seen, so our youngest daughter, she's a new driver. I've been teaching them you stop. You stop. You look. You wait. It's not worth cutting somebody off. It's not worth taking a
chance. It's not a competition to see who can get unthrilled first. Your life is more important to wait. And what we have seen from people sometimes, they don't understand the direction of where they're supposed to go because
there are no like turn arrows in the J turns. They used to be and they're gone. You can see the imprint. Same thing at the right turn lane. Some people may not understand that you go a little further to take a left. So, they've tried driving through the things to go
backwards. So, a lot of what happens there now is straight up human error. They don't understand the intersection. I'm not sure why, but it has gotten a lot safer than what it used to be. And
that's from someone who uses it, and my family uses it daily, sometimes more than once a day. Thank you. Is there someone with Mindot in here that I could ask a question to
specifically? You know, when we bring go back a couple years to when they when she did lose her life and um that that intersection was shut off and I remember the conversations of okay, initially they were going to be shut off going both directions. We shut them off just going north and all of those cones were
put in um to not let people sneak through. Um, Council Member Lewis made a comment that it it does it gets confusing. There's a lot of flashing. There's a lot of lights everywhere. Is there a point where you guys say it is working how it is now? We can take some
of that concrete out to omit some of those 50 poles that are there that can be very distracting and very confusing to residents or commuters that don't know. I mean, is that a possibility? And is that a pretty minimal cost that will help um the drivers understand where
they're going? Good evening everyone. I'm Greg O. I'm the district engineer for district 7. And to that end, that's the part of the evolution of the J turn concepts that we've been utilizing across the state. U
that is one of the things that um is part of the criteria now. Do you need those interior lefts? And um so that when the when the traffic is coming to go across the road, they just go right into the to the J turn itself and then
you don't allow so everybody's coming down the road and you go into the J turn. All the traffic is turning at the same location. That appears to be um safer uh for everybody and it's it's probably the in the future you will the
decision will be made as to whether or not you include them. I think the initial design in the future would be that they won't be included. So, I think in time here, we're we're like the rest of you, we're just trying to see how traffic is utilizing it. Uh it is
favorable. I don't have the actual statistics in front of me in terms of the crashes out there. Um but it's favorable in that that uh it's been performing well and that that's not, you know, not we don't
want to up those those tube delineators is any longer than we have to, but it's it's probably reaching the point where the decision will be made as to how we're going to reconfigure and make those changes. Okay. So I I think we're at the point where
we'll call the question of does is anybody want to you know make a motion of which to propose A, B, C or D. I think we're all okay with B and C gone. Um,
I look to the council to make a motion. Somebody you want to propose A or B? >> I think this is where it gets scary, right? Because you propose A and we're being the fear into us in my words that
propose A is not going to happen. you got to propose D, but D is not what we want. Um, so I hope everybody understands that this is not easy right now with what we're doing. Um, and the decisions that are having to be made. And I think that's where I keep going
back forth because I in my heart I feel like A is the one. >> And I'm not trying to discredit 17 and 27 because I know stuff needs to get fixed there. Um, but I don't know that I can go home and sleep well at night knowing that
1300 residents and we're in Eagle Lake that use that every single day. And I said, "Okay, let's shut that one down. We're going to go with that." So, um, I I'm just in and reading the proposed recommendation. Um, I hope some of you guys saw it too on it, but you know, the
long range vision of the city of E Lake may pursue funding. Um, right now we're working as a collaboration between Mandot, the county, um, city of Eagle Lake. We're all working together. In my mind, we're all going to work together to try and
get funding needed. Um, administrator Broland just nearly got grants for in the upwards of $750,000 to do a trail out on the souththeast side of town. Um, I think there was naysayers saying you we won't raise even half that. We ra she raised almost the full thing where it's
going to be minimal for the city. So we're being told, nope, you're not going to get it. You can't do it. Don't try it. But I think it's worth the try. In my opinion, it's we owe it to our residents to at least try for the best instead of continuing to bandaid it. Um,
so as hard as it might be to get the money, I would say we we have to do it right or we at least have to make a hard effort to do it right rather than um eliminate it or put a band-aid on it. So I would make a motion to push hard to um
try and get uh option A. I'll second that motion with an addendum of saying that the traffic study was started with that intersection at at 56 and that supports that intersection. So, I'll second Beth's motion.
>> All right, we have a first and second. Any other discussion? Do we need a roll call? Would it be best to do a roll call in this situation? >> Roll call vote. Can I ask a question?
There is a slight difference in concept A and what's done at 1727. Um so because what's shown on D at 1727 is a traditional interchange >> and concept A can you?
>> Yes. Um, >> I just want to be really clear because I think what I what I think your motion is is to have an interchange and a high te >> my assuming concept A I would love that because that was D2 in my mind. An
interchange and high T would be D2 and that's obviously we hope for um but I'm understanding that concept A is an overpass with access both east and west onto 14. You just have to do a little bit extra little ring around the rosie
to get to it. >> That is the >> correct because it does because con and for me concept a >> I'm I am fully taking cost out of it. We just have just like we're doing with the water treatment facility. We just have to all work together and do everything we can and we ask the residents do the
same thing. When you're being asked to do stuff, put the letters out there, help us. But concept A gives fluid motion every direction at both of our main intersections into town in my mind where concept D does not do that. >> Thank you for that. So yes,
>> I just wanted to make sure that >> Carrie >> Mr. White. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lewis, >> no. >> Mr. Steinberg, >> yes.
Mrs. Ro. >> Yes. >> Mayor Whittington. >> No. >> All right. So, that passes. So, we'll be working with the county on, I'm assuming, on the next steps of how
we wrangle through this issue. Correct. So, right now the the the council is saying that we want to pursue a um so we'll be going forward and and with those discussions. Anything else before we adjourn or we
looking for motion to adjourn? >> I'll second. It was first and second. I don't think we made a All right. Thanks for all your input. This was great. You know, everybody was respectful and we made it through.