Residents exposed inconsistencies in the ESC plan, including ignored safety guidelines and selective use of outdated studies. They proposed a hybrid alternative to reduce impacts. The meeting also marked Commissioner Gnemi’s final session, with residents thanking him for his service. 

Residents exposed biased ESC evaluations, where Alternative 3 was favored over Alternative 4 despite similar results. They also raised concerns about misleading data, inconsistent costs, and omitted safety guidelines.

A resident highlighted major discrepancies in WSB’s memorandum to the federal government, raising concerns about flawed data influencing project approvals. They also questioned why zoning laws restrict cannabis dispensaries near schools, yet the ESC project would place a highway within 500 feet of homes and directly on school property. If safety is a priority, why isn’t it being applied consistently? 

Residents voiced serious concerns about the East Side Corridor (ESC) project, exposing inconsistencies, lack of transparency, and potential misuse of eminent domain. From unexpected relocations and flawed noise impact reports to manipulated data and sudden displacement, the community is demanding accountability. While the council allowed the eminent domain motion to fail, prioritizing residents.

Residents exposed major inconsistencies in the East Side Corridor planning, questioning why Alternative 4 was eliminated despite similar results to Alternative 3, which includes millions in avoidable costs. Concerns over representation changes, lack of communication, and the use of eminent domain without fair assessments raised serious ethical issues. Watch now to see why residents are demanding transparency and accountability.

Unfortunately, due to a malfunction, this video was not recorded. During the discussion, one resident emphasized the distinct differences between 26th Street and 29th Avenue, noting that they should not be directly compared. Another resident expressed concerns about the ESC and the declining availability of county resources, highlighting how the two issues are interconnected, and urged commissioners to take meaningful action to address these challenges. 

This was a significant and important meeting.  Many residents spoke, there was a public hearing for the 2025 CIP and approval to spend sales tax dollars on it. The Crossing of the railroad at the roundabout on 18th St was approved. And Paul Sponholtz was appointed as the County Engineer. 

A resident raised concerns about recent accidents caused by speeds of 70-90 mph on city streets and through parks. Another incident, with speeds exceeding 115 mph, occurred on roads similar to the ESC but not near residential areas, highlighting the risks of the proposed proximity. 

Residents did not speak at the August 27th meeting, however several key items happened in this meeting: Steele County parking lot reconstruction approval, Commissioners approved increased funding for WSB, Increase the County Commissioner Pay Range

One resident spoke about the "Safe Roads for All" grant, thanking the commissioners for seeking ways to improve road safety and reminding them of their power to drive positive change to protect residents. 

Residents were not available to attend this meeting.

One resident marked the two-year milestone of the ESC, noting no alternative had been chosen and thanked the Commissioners for prioritizing safety. Another resident emphasized that the decision now lies with the federal government, continuing to stress the importance of resident safety and their commitment to advocacy.

Two residents raised concerns. The first stressed the need for transparency and safety, noting that some residents were informed about a preferred alternative while others were not. They questioned the lack of data and stakeholder inclusion, urging residents to ask the right questions at the right time. The second resident expressed frustration over stakeholders being sidelined, referencing the County Engineer's comment that commissioners often defer to experts, while ignoring resident safety and input.

Residents passionately discuss road safety concerns in their community. The first resident proposes solutions to enhance current and future road safety following recent accidents. The next shares personal experiences of lifelong injuries from being hit by a car, emphasizing the profound impact on daily life, school support systems, and potential implications for opioid addiction. Another resident highlights safety worries linked to the ESC's proximity to homes, vulnerable adults, and children. Lastly, frustration is voiced about ongoing issues with speeding traffic reaching 65 mph past homes, despite repeated complaints.

Residents raise concerns about the risks posed by having a road close to existing homes. One resident discusses the potential for an intrusive noise wall due to the proximity of a highway to residences. Another resident recounts a local incident where a child under two years old was struck while being carried through a crosswalk, along with other accidents involving an elderly man, another child, and a car and semi crash off the road. They highlight the risks associated with 29th Ave near residents' homes. Constructing the ESC would increase the city's responsibilities, already strained by maintaining current roads. Residents question the county's plans to ensure residents' safety on these roads.

A resident spoke about recent accidents in the area where young children at play were struck and killed by vehicles. He emphasized that these kinds of safety measures are not being studied and urged the commissioners to consider these scenarios when building the ESC.

A resident clarified the difference between building a safe road and ensuring safety for residents living near the road. They emphasized that these factors are not included in any studies, but these are the concerns commissioners have agreed to make a top priority.

Residents express gratitude to Commissioners Abbe and Krueger for prioritizing resident safety and engaging in meaningful conversations. They highlight concerns that road safety standards often overlook the impact on nearby residents, such as increased road noise leading to health issues like heightened heart attack risks and cognitive development problems. Furthermore, they note that existing studies fail to address these safety concerns for those living near highways. Steele County has historically avoided encroaching on existing subdivisions with roads, citing these reasons and more.

While residents weren't able to attend the March 26, 2024, meeting, Commissioners Abbe and Kreuger mentioned that they thought the neighborhood meeting with residents affected by the ESC went well.

Residents discuss Owatonna's historical road development patterns, noting roads have encroached on land but not residences. Another resident compares 29th Ave and 26th St, highlighting similarities with 34th Ave and 26th St. They point out federal and state regulations prioritize road avoidance over encroachment, allowing homes to encroach on roads, but not the reverse.

It was noted that no residents from the ESC were able to attend. Despite their absence, important discussions and decisions were made that impact the community. Watch to stay informed on the latest developments and decisions from the County Commissioner Meeting. 

Initially, a resident questioned the necessity of the East Side Corridor, both 30 years ago and now as it encroaches on residents' backyards, especially given the millions just spent to reconstruct downtown. Simply so there is a place to build a trail? 

Following this, another resident expressed frustration in spending $250,000 to study a major project when residents could have provided valuable insight for free.  They highlighted the lack of representatives seeking firsthand knowledge of how thirty-year-old plans manifest in today's Owatonna. 

Finally, a comparison between Steele County residents' priorities and this project underscores a significant disconnect. Urging for a change in approach, they emphasize the importance of listening and addressing residents' concerns, beginning with aligning this project with 34th Ave - residents' preference for the past thirty years.

Commissioner Abbe addressed the recently created map, which indicates the distances to 34th Ave from different city limits. He noted distances ranging from 0.74 - 1.42 miles, missing the smallest distances, this does not account for the distance that residents commonly refer to between the locations of the two studied corridors, which only vary from 0.5 to 0.74 miles.

A resident voiced frustrations regarding numerous inconsistencies in the current proposal, including discrepancies in distance to 34th Ave and decisions made without environmental reports. They highlighted the lack of transparency and willingness to address constituent concerns, particularly from the elected commissioner of that district.

Next, noise ordinances were discussed. Steele County lacks adopted noise ordinances, thus requiring compliance with state regulations. These regulations mandate the prohibition of land use that would immediately violate noise levels for existing residential areas, citing the dangers to residents and daily life. Since part of the proposal falls within city limits, city ordinance must also be followed, which similarly restrict such land use and stipulates misdemeanor charges for violators.

Another resident expressed a preference for pushing the highway out to 34th Ave.

Due to a mandated change in date, residents were unable to attend this meeting, so there are no public comments pertaining to the East Side Corridor. This meeting does document the change of commissioner's roles.   

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?