At the meeting, despite residents' absence due to holidays, a letter of support was discussed for the City of Owatonna's application for Transportation Alternatives (TA) funding for the East Side Corridor multiuse trail. The assistant county engineer briefed the council, mentioning that the trail's length would be approximately 4.5 miles, contingent on its location. It was noted that TA had about $12.5 million available, with the trail's estimated cost at $990,000. The project was eligible for $846,000 in funding, and the city was requesting $676,000. Commissioner Abbe clarified that this funding would not be tied to a specific location. Subsequently, the County approved the drafting of a letter of support for the funding application.

Residents raised concerns about continued and recent inconsistencies regarding the project, particularly regarding the elimination of alternatives from studies while being told that open dialogue could not occur until studies were completed. They referenced a city council meeting where the Engineer stated that all alternatives were being studied, yet the project was consistently referred to as 29th Ave. Residents emphasized their desire for open conversations to address these issues.

Later in the meeting, discussions shifted to the levy and how the East Side Corridor might impact future levies. Commissioners mentioned efforts to incorporate the road into the State Aid Highway System.

Residents conveyed to the commissioners that the County Engineer recently discovered properties were already built within the mapped right-of-way, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing the sequence of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation to safeguard residents. They highlighted avoidance as the most cost-effective option, emphasized that minimization was no longer feasible due to existing houses, and expressed concerns about the expense and visual impact of mitigation measures such as sound barriers. Residents also delineated differences between this highway project and previous proposals. Furthermore, they reiterated their request for open dialogue and reasonable expectations.

In a separate development, the Council approved the 2024-2028 Capital Improvement Plan.

2024 Transportation Plan Public Hearing

During the 2024 Transportation Plan Public Hearing, County Engineer Greg Ilkka presented the plan, with the East Side Corridor as the only major project. Throughout the hearing, numerous residents expressed their concerns, both verbally and through written correspondence, regarding safety issues along the East Side Corridor, particularly at the 29th Ave location. The consensus among residents was a strong advocacy for the 34th Ave alternative as a safer option, with the least impact to farmers. However, despite these unified pleas, there has been a notable absence of further dialogue or action on the matter in the three-plus months since the hearing.

It is evident that Commissioner Abbe's stance on the issue prioritizes others' interests above those of his constituents. While residents advocate for avoidance measures spanning hundreds of feet, as is supported by history and current regulations, it appears that commissioners are only considering solutions on a much smaller scale, measured in tens of feet. This does not prioritize the safety or meet noise regulations for established neighborhoods.

Residents highlight numerous inconsistencies from the County Engineer, particularly regarding houses within the mapped right-of-way and flooding concerns associated with building a road over retaining ponds intended to prevent flooding. They also bring attention to a petition signed by 200 individuals regarding the proposed location of the East Side Corridor, urging for the road to be constructed at 34th Ave.

FIFTEEN FEET

Residents address the need for small businesses such as gas stations and grocery stores. The proposed location doesn't allow for that.  Residents presented visuals showing less than 15' between the proposed highway and homes. They addressed the distance to stop vehicles is 200-400' to stop vehicles. This will be a deadly project.  

Residents delve into the historical context surrounding the proximity of this plan to existing residential developments, accompanied by visual evidence showcasing the close proximity of the highway to residents' homes. They also raise concerns about potential state recommended mitigation efforts that engineers have indicated they are unwilling to implement, further adding to the community's apprehensions. 

Residents address concerns with the lack of transparency. Why are we looking at things we already know in previous studies while also ignoring information we already know that don't align with the county's narrative? 

Residents recount the history of the East Side Corridor, highlighting key aspects such as the deliberate examination of the final route in 2000, to maintain an 800-foot separation from established residences. They emphasize the importance of safeguarding the corridor's right-of-way to prevent encroachment, a measure that regrettably was not fully implemented. Additionally, they reference MnDOT's recommendations from earlier studies. They also discuss the current prospects for aligning objectives and strategies moving forward.

There was a time change on this meeting that was not updated consistently, so residents showed up after the meeting finished, and comments were not heard. 

Residents address concerns for a lack of communication and formally ask for further 2 way dialog from the county commissioners. This was referred to the County Administrator and further 2 way conversations with commissioners were ultimately denied. 

Residents continue to bring up so many of their concerns, including the detrimental effects of the noise from Jake Breaking, at the proposed location of the East Side Corridor. 34th Ave offers safety and growth.

Residents speak out about the location of the East Side Corridor. 34th Ave remains a consistant solution for residents.

This is the first County Meeting residents attended in regards to the East Side Corridor. Many residents spoke out to many different concerns their being faced with by building a highway on land already developed for residential areas. Just a few seconds down the road is an existing minimum maintenance road called 34th Ave. Why aren't we looking at that?