All right. This is the Minatrista City Council work session for March 16th, 2026. It is now 501. We will call the meeting to order. The fir the items for discussion this afternoon are the 9550 West Hill Road abatement update. Uh B the Bayside Lane storm water project discussion and C the Highway 7 TMO update discussion. Um any changes to the agenda? >> No. Nope. >> All right. Then the first one. >> Yeah. Um let's see. What should I call you? Um president of the council. Kathleen. Um what we have today is uh kind of a continuation of our discussion about the abatement process um related to this this parcel and potentially another parcel just off of uh County Road 110 West. Um this is kind of our first time going through this as a city and um what I did is I asked uh our city attorney Sarah Sala to kind of outline the process. So everybody's really familiar with it and um not only staff-wise, you know, there's a big part with our police department um city council touch points uh just so that you guys kind of know what we're doing um as we move this along. So um there's a memo in here that Sarah prepared that kind of goes through the process. Um Craig is working through that process right now. Uh we're kind of starting it not necessarily over, but we're we're doing some things we've already done just to make sure that we're doing it correctly. Um, and it sounds like if if things go the way I think we think they will go, we will likely um be looking at doing this administrative search warrant part, which is kind of the first part, um, sometime in early April now that we have snow again. Um, we'll probably have to let that melt off this week. Um, but then that would allow us to uh do an inventory of the property. Uh, and then we can bring that back to city council and prepare a report and and go through that process. And then um from there you all will be able to determine if you want to issue an abatement order and and then we'll go through that that process. So um we have Sarah here if if you have any questions for her. Um I'm not sure if you have any questions for me or or Craig. Uh but we're just kind of want to make sure everybody understands the process. So um we're doing it correctly since it is our kind of first time as a city doing this. >> Okay. Um, Jasper, um, I think Sarah mentioned in her memo that the county might have or may do something. Um, have you investigated that at all or? >> Uh, we have not. I don't know, Sarah, if you can elaborate on that a little bit. She's, uh, remote. >> Um, >> yeah. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I mean, you can definitely reach out to the county. I know lots of times they don't want to get involved, but I guess it doesn't hurt to ask. Sounds like the city hasn't done that yet. So maybe before you go full steam into this process, you might want to reach out to the county first to see if they have if they want to have any involvement because that would make things a little bit easier and we could use some of their resources. >> Yeah. And I Well, so I I dug into this a little bit probably about three years ago. Um, and and there was a whole proceeding with the county environmental services. Um, and I think this individual, the property owner, ended up going to jail, I believe, for 7 days for just not not abiding by what the county wanted to do. And essentially what I understood, and I talked to the environmental person who is still there at the county, um, this was 3 years ago, so we we should reboot it as Sarah said, but um, they kind of they indicated that it was kind of a city problem at that time. um because there were a lot of environmental concerns with what is on the property and that's kind of how the county got involved and I think there was a citation that just didn't get paid and then that individual just I think ended up spending some time in county jail. So, uh but this was I'm estimating 25 years ago. Oh, quite a while. I want to say maybe even 30 years ago. So, but we will definitely reach out to the county and see if they want to get involved. But I would I wouldn't, you know, unless things have changed in the last three years. Yeah. Okay. Okay. >> Any other questions? >> All right. >> All right. >> Let's see. >> And next we have the Bayside Lane storm water project discussion. >> Yes. Um, President Ruffkin, um, we have basically there's been some, uh, developments with this as far as gaining access to the property. I don't think we have an issue with gaining access. We just have a a resident that doesn't want us to basically um, install a pipe. So, um, Allison is kind of the lead on the project and Gary. Um I I ended up meeting with this property owner along with Mayor Whan last week um and got got the gist of it. And basically it's um there's a there's a well um this property owner's well that was installed. We're not quite sure but either in our drainage and utility easement or right next to it. We think it's in it. Um so I think next week or the week after or so there's going to be a survey done of the drainage and utility easement just to see where that well is. Um, but so the underlying issue with the property owner is that there's this state statute from 1993 that gives guidance that a pipe that's 8 in or larger in size, a storm water pipe, shouldn't be placed within 20 ft of a well. Um, the pipe that we're talking about installing is 4 in. So, it would be below that threshold. Um, but the property owner is really leaning on that it's a still a storm water pipe even though there is a 12-in pipe within 6 ft of it that was installed short probably like 3 months before this statute was adopted in 1993. So if you imagine a well right here 12in pipe here and then there'll be a a 4-in pipe kind of running directly um along with the 12-in line. So um from our perspective we have a drainage and utility easement that we can put utilities in. Um there's some, you know, underlying state statutes that we have to be aware of that I don't think we're we're going to be violating anything with, but there has been the threat of legal action. So, we want to make sure that, you know, the the project has been approved. Um we've signed contracts with it, but we just want to make sure we're we're touching base with with this group to see once if we want to continue to proceed with it. Um I'm not sure if Allison, Gary, if you want to add anything that I missed or misinterpreted. Um yeah, just to reiterate, so when um the question came up about the separation between the well and the proposed pipe, um A2S actually reached directly out to the Department of Health to get clarification on that. So we have we have that. Um and then we also included in the packet to just summarizing the options that um Gary and I looked at for resolving the issues at 9, you know, addressing the issues at 9:25. um there's there's no easy option here. So, I just wanted to point that out to to the council that that's included in your packet for summary that we've looked at multiple options here and came forward with this with the the 4-in pipe um based for the reasons uh stated in the in the packet there. >> And I'll just add to that with the response we got from the Department of Health, they do mention that there is a 20 20 foot isolation distance, but anything over or greater than 8 in. So the 4 in does not fall under that. Um but one thing that they did put in there and the neighbor is aware of this. We sent him this um complete email that they do say that you know they have to maintain or um maintain an adequate maintenance distance for them to do that. Um, and my question to my staff who Randy Storms and Mark Flying who both were in the welding industry for 25 years before coming here, drilling and installing and doing maintenance on wells, ask him what that meant. And basically, if they were to seal the well, they would seal it, they would dig down, you know, he said, and Randy said, you know, 5 to 6 to 7 ft. They would snap off that pipe and they would just bury everything. So that's quote unquote what you know the maintenance distance is. They would not dig down to the point where they you would have to. I mean you know they would pull this there. No maintenance involved that would um be interfered by this pipe going in and stuff. And we're going to try to keep this as tight as we can to the other one. Give it as much room as possible. So I mean if that's you know one of the things that it's going to rely on, we're going to meet all that. So, it's just we've got a great plan in place. We have a great contractor. I mean, I I mean, I don't see any issue with this. Um, we just have a, you know, one neighbor that just plain and simple just does not want it, does not want to be helpful. And, oh, sorry. >> What was there first? The well or the utility easement? >> So, the utility easement. Yeah, that was recorded with the with the plaid. So, and then the then the well was installed and then shortly after that, I believe the 12-in pipe was installed. Um, but >> are all those homes on wells? I I thought that was City Water. Uh, >> they are all on wells. Yep. Yep. So, um, one thing I will I'll just convey this from that property owner is that they're concerned about contamination of their well. Um, and really, you know, thinking about how that contamination could happen. Uh, that pipe, you know, the 4 in or the 12-in would have to break. Um, fully understanding that that's storm water. It's not like it's not sanitary sewer or anything like that. It's just storm water. Um, the 12-in line is some surface water. Uh, but the 4-inch line would likely be pretty much ground water be coming from a sump underground and then pumped up and you know or not a sump, but it would it would be a basin. >> Mostly ground water. >> Yeah. So, it'd be mostly ground water. Um, and in order for it to contaminate his well, it would likely have to contaminate the entire aquifer um and get down. That well is 131 ft below the surface. So that water would have to have some sort of contaminant in it and and then infiltrate 131 ft down to the aquafer in order for there to be contamination. You know, you can't say never, but highly unlikely uh for that to occur. But it's that that is the concern. I just wanted to make sure that that was conveyed to you all um that his concern is about contaminating as well. And with wells in a utility drainage ement there the well code doesn't say that you can't do it but it would be city you know it'd be up to the city to say you cannot do it and it's not any you know there'd be absolutely no way if somebody came to us and said we want to put a well in your drainage in the utility drain easement that we would allow that whatsoever. I mean, it would have to be a pretty big hardship to allow that because of the fact that if anything would ever have to get done in there where we would have to dig in there. Even this wall becomes even, you know, a lot of work to to be around. >> Do you do you not need do you need a per you don't need a permit to put a well in? >> You you do need a permit. Um, and this well was installed in 1993. Um, and there's a there's a well log and all of that stuff. Um, I kind of alluded to us doing a survey of the drainage and utility easement just to see if there is something in there. If there is, if the well is in there, um, we'll likely bring that back to the city council. And, you know, as you maybe are aware, when there are things in our rightway or or easements, we we can issue a license agreement that, you know, acknowledges that there's something in there, we give permission. Um, we talk about, you know, what it means to be in there. It's it's very close. it's either in there or it's within a foot of it. If it's within a foot of it, we don't have to do a license agreement, but we should probably look at it if there is just, you know, in case there's future issues. Um, so likely I think in the next couple weeks um we can get a survey crew out there just to see once what if it's in there or not. Um, and kind of go from there. But, um, I think you're hearing from from staff. We don't think there's much issue uh with putting the pipe in. I just we just wanted to make sure you you are aware of the the property owner's concerns. >> Has the person that's experiencing the flooding, has he talked to this homeowner that's objecting? Does he understand the magnitude of the flooding? >> 925. >> Can I speak? >> So with Can you state your name and address? Yes. Um, Gina, 925 Bayside Lane. I'm kind of representing that whole >> strip >> strip per se. We've been dealing with this for 26 years. Sherry Fiser knows who I am. And I mean, sad. >> Um, but this gentleman, it could be 100 ft from his property. Could be one inch and he would still have a problem with it. Does not play nice with anybody. I've heard that he's had multiple runins with the city multiple times. Um, this is an easy access. This is all spring water. We're basically the lowest lot. 925 is the lowest lot on Bayside Lane on that side. So what happened is we are collecting it all put in our drain tile across um to the north southwest corner and we have been pumping it and pumping it and and going through pumps and we've got three pumps running on our property and we're it's still flooding all the neighbors because it's so saturated that when we get a lot of heavy rainfall it has no place to go. It's so saturated. This was an easy access. It couldn't have lined up better. Um, this would be a godsend. I mean, we've all spent many, many thousands of dollars doing everything what we could. Um, putting in basins front, back, everywhere, pumps, you name it. This is an easy access. And don't understand why someone wouldn't help their neighbors and getting rid of all this water and getting it directed to the lake. So, versus causing havoc. Um, and here comes spring. So here we go with storms. No electricity. People are afraid to leave their houses on storms vacations because of this. So, um, all I have to say is let's, you know, I mean, if if the state approved it, if the city, everybody's approving it and it's within an easement, and I'd be also questioning when he put his well in that close to the easement, there was that 12-in drain pipe that's from his existing neighbor to the north. When was that put in that he doesn't have a problem with that? Right. And that's right. >> Yeah. No, he seemed to have no problem with that and that was put in after his as well. But, you know, so >> that's the confusion. That's the first thing I'm going to think of is you put your well in that close to the easement. Why? >> And then you have a 12-in pipe that was put in. You had no problem with that. Why is that? Now you have a problem with a 4 in clear water, spring water just being diverted away to help dry out that area. So, let's see where we end up with this. Thank you. >> I think it he was the original owner, the the person that's objecting. Correct. Yeah. >> Um Sarah, is there any legal issues with us proceeding? >> Uh madame acting mayor, members of the council, I'm not aware of any. I The property owner has not I mean, he says he's going to bring legal action, but we have not seen any basis for the legal action. I guess it'd be nice to see that, but I mean I can't think of what the, you know, what concerns, what legal concerns he would be able to raise here. >> Okay. And I mean, we can do what we want in the easements. Correct. I mean, within reason. >> Correct. I mean, I think it's a matter of, you know, does this benefit the public? And I think it sounds like it's benefiting not just one property owner, but several. Um, so I would say that's the public. and um you know it's being used for drainage and utility purposes by putting in a storm water pipe. So it's not outside the scope of the easement. So I think you're within the scope of the easement and it's being used to benefit the public. >> Any other when So Gary, when this goes in, does it look is it like a big like drain like a circular cover thing with like a grate over it and then the water goes into it or what does this look like when it goes in? >> It'll just be basically it'll be underground. It's just going to be a clear or just a small 4-in pipe that's going to be basically inside basically a rock bed that's just where the water's collecting underground that uh will just transfer away. >> How hard is it to construct this? How long would it take? How long would a neighbor be inconvenience? >> It won't hardly be inconvenience at all for most of it. I mean, there'll be some excavation in the right of way where we need to make the connection to the storm pipe. Um, but through his yard, the biggest thing I'll see are some, you know, probably some marking where the route's going to go and then just have the guys going through there with their indicators to to, you know, as they're boring this pipe in the ground, they'll have location sensor, you know, they'll put down to make sure their depth is going and where they're at and keeping online. But as far as, you know, there's not going to be a lot of disturbance. Um, you know, these residents will have a lot more disturbance cuz they're going to have a a machine in there coming through their yard. are going to have a bore pit in their yard, you know. So, I mean, you know, at the grand scheme of things, it's not much at all. >> So, we're accessing this from their side of the street side. >> Yeah. We have the drain, we install drain tile in and outside of our home, and it goes whole across to a catchway in the corner. >> We're disturbing all of that that we put in any thousands of dollars >> to make this happen because we're using that as let it collect there and then take it away. So, we're helping neighbors north or south of us. As long as it can happen, we don't care. >> It makes zero sense why anybody would even disagree with us. >> And the tolerances are pretty tight. That's why we're going to start there to make sure we have that depth that we need there to, you know, make sure at the very, you know, so we hit the pipe there and we hit here that we have, you know, the required fall. So, Any other questions? >> So, what do we do next? Just send him a letter. >> Continue to move forward as planned with the project. >> Yeah. So, this is this is essentially a check-in and to see if there's any objections to us continuing with the project based on some of this new information. Um, and if you want us to proceed, we will proceed. >> I say proceed. >> Proceed. >> Yep. Yep. >> Proceed. >> All right. >> Yay. cocktail. >> When When is the work scheduled to start? >> Uh once Frost goes out. Um the contractor we have, I just talked to him. Um he's he has pipe ready to order. He's ready to go. So, we just have to wait for the frost to get out and get road restrictions off and then they can move in and start doing it. >> All right. Well, >> great. Sounds good. >> Thanks for coming in. >> Thanks for coming. >> Thank you. >> I'll let all the neighbors know. That's great. Bye. Thank you, >> Barry. I'm sure we'll be in contact. >> Yep. >> All right. Next, the trunk highway 7 update. >> Yes. Uh, President Refkin, uh, what we're going to talk about today is a little bit kind of an update about trunk highway 7 and TMO stands for traffic management organization. So, in 2024, uh I believe it was 2024, Kelly Morrison kind of authored a bill that allowed uh the establishment of a traffic management organization for Highway 7. The city of Shorewood was the city named in this bill. So, they've been kind of facilitating a lot of the the meetings that we had. Um there was essentially $200,000 of seed money that allowed us to study Trunk Highway 7. You >> spent $200,000 studying Highway 7? Oh yes. Um well consultants. Um so >> I'm in the wrong business. >> But um so that that's that's where that is at. So this is about a year and a half kind of in in the mix. And the cities that are involved with this right now are the cities of Chanhassen, Deep Haven, Excelsier, Greenwood, Minnetonka, Minatrista, Shorewood, St. Bonafacious, and Victoria. So you can kind of see where it starts. It's kind of this western side. Um, and it's it's in conjunction with this um 2029 Milan overlay project that I think everybody's maybe heard of. Um, that's somewhat controversial because there's uh these um mind recommended improvements that uh we will actually have MIDOT here on um April 20th to discuss with the group and talk to you about what that means. um from my understanding and Allison I know is is involved with this is just those improvements are recommended but they are unfunded so they don't have money to actually do them but if they did they would you know do a couple of these things um and one of them that I think everybody's heard of is is probably the median that is proposed um basically from um like rolling acres all the way into St. bonafacious. So that would limit access significantly on and off. It's on and off through there. Um but um so that's just part of it. So this traffic management organization is trying to get organized and um there's a uh we don't have a JPA or a draft JPA that I think is in any position to um to be shared. I think there's been one that's that's been floated around, but um really the path that I think the group is going down and there's a there's a lot of fiscally conservative cities in this group that are, you know, not necessarily wanting to sign into a JPA that has a financial um contribution set annually. So, it's just one another one of those things where it's, you know, a formula of some sort that determines how much each city pays. Um, and we've looked at different formulas and they're all over the board. Um, so one of the ideas and and we don't really have to take action at all today, like we can't anyway, but is to provide an update um just about like kind of where it's at. Um, but essentially the idea would be a JPA that forms and gets the group to collaborate, but there's no financial contribution. that doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be an ask in the future for, you know, but there's an there's no there's no contractual obligation to pay. So, for example, one of the things that that could be asked for is a grant writer to write a grant for a grant that would, you know, do some safety improvement to to trunk highway 7. Um, and depending on how much that costs, they would maybe split that between the groups equally. We don't know how this would work but um so there wouldn't be any financial you know dedicated financial contribution to do any of this work but there would be a group formed. So >> so if we joined a group and the group decided that they wanted to charge more even if we were outvoted we'd still have to contribute. >> I don't think so. Um, it seems like there's there's pretty good push back from not only our community, but you know, I'll just throw Chan Hass out there cuz they've been kind of vocal about it, but not to have any sort of, you know, set financial contribution because there's a bunch there's there's another trunk highway 7 safety coalition that's more police related that has a very similar name that other cities contribute to. So there's been talk of joining with them to kind of look at um you know can we do things their their missions are two different two separate missions you know safety but more enforcement related safety measures versus you know putting up like actual infrastructure to help make things safe. So um just that branding is something that we've talked about um quite a bit as well. So essentially what I'd like to discuss and have have discussed amongst you guys is do we want to you know continue this um I don't know journey kind of forming this group. Um I think that I don't know unless there's some uh somebody on council that wants to have us dedicated uh or dedicate financially to this group. Um, I think personally I think having a group that's formed that doesn't have any financial contributions might make it challenging for that group to be successful, but it would also, you know, still leave an avenue open for if if there is an ask, a financial ask for the group to still kind of maybe get some meaningful work done. Not that we would ever have to financially contribute. So, it's very unclear how the JPA could look, but um as these discussions are are coming, um Mayor Whan and myself are the ones that kind of attend these meetings monthly and we just like some feedback as far as what the what our community or what our city council would like to see um if anything. So, the basically the $200,000 is going to run out at some point in time. Um, and SRF was the engineering group that got the contract with with this TMO to get things established, study the the Millan overlay project, and see what other um, MIDOT improvements they wanted to try to help get funded. So I think there's a there's a funding request to the state legislature similar to like what ours is for a water treatment plant to fund those um recommended improvements minus the median. So the the one that would in that would affect us um or that's kind of in our area is the Wildwood intersection which is somewhat timely with the development discussion that we've we've had recently. Um, and that would turn into, I believe, and Allison, you can correct me if I'm wrong, it's like a threequarter intersection. Kind of a right in, right out situation. >> Is that what they call that? >> Uh, right in, right? Threearter intersection is um at 44. It's It's a weird >> Okay. It was like a Isn't that It's a green at Wildwood, too. It's kind of the It's to prevent anybody from >> from turning making lefts from eastbound 5 to Wildwood >> from seven eastbound 7 onto Wildwood. >> Yep. >> So, but again, this is not funded by Mindot. And um when they're here on the 20th, they will be very clear that none of this stuff is funded and um >> you know, there's there's no money to do any of the improvements other than the Millan overlay. Have the accidents dramatically increased in the last 5 years, 10 years? I mean, I live there. I turn on from 44 to Highway 7 several times a day. I've never felt like it was dangerous because I'm not on my phone and I'm paying attention. So, I I don't understand what is this $55 million they're looking for. >> Um, well, for the the Millan overlay project is I believe that much. the an overlay project funded. >> Yes, >> that's in the budget. >> Yes, >> that is. >> So, it's going to happen no matter what. >> It will in 2029. So, the potholes and whatnot that are currently >> atrocious now. >> I mean, I don't want a big pylon going down the middle of my road. I think that's more dangerous. And >> you know, I would say increased maybe this isn't the place to talk about it, but throw people in jail if they're on their phones and driving. I don't I don't know what's causing the accidents. >> Yeah. Well, is it the the increased traffic and the 2500 more people out on Woodland Cove and it's more crowded or what? >> Well, most of the accidents aren't happening in Matrista. If you look at the the map thing, they're all farther east. So, I mean, I I think this is a waste of time cuz one, I don't like any of these changes. Why would I want to join a group that's doing things that we >> I don't want. >> I don't want them either. Madam President, >> I don't feel the road. I mean, I'm I I am on it multiple times. I don't feel that it's dangerous. I don't feel people are driving crazy. I don't I think accidents happen like the terrible accident at 44 and 7. Um, but wasn't that just an accident? She wasn't. I mean, was an accident. Terrible, terrible accident. But >> would that I don't know. I think >> well I I lived by 12 and um they put the median in there and and we haven't had any fatalities since. Um but so I mean I there were just some horrible things that happened and um so I you know I do think it's an issue we need to deal with but I but it totally closed that road off then. I mean there aren't going to be any more intersections there and so you know that doesn't really work here. So, I I agree with you on the the median, but it seems like u you know, it's a it's kind of a a country road that city people are driving on. They don't understand that you can get in head on, you know, if you do the wrong thing. And >> so, I I think we need to be involved to do something about this because it's just really dangerous. >> Yeah. And the whole the whole, if I may, the whole point of a traffic management organization is there's limited funding for all of these roads. And most of the major trunk roads in Minnesota have some sort of group that lobbies for additional funding for that road. >> Isn't that why we have representatives and Henipin County who takes our tax dollars? >> Um, you would you would hope so, but that's not I mean that's not really how it works. Um, you know, unfortunately, it seems to be that the groups that are around the longest and are have the ear of the representatives not only our representatives, but all the representatives who fund different projects, um, lobbyists and whatnot. It seems to be that's the way that these projects get done. Now, some of them take decades. You know, you might not see anything happen for decades. You might have some major improvements. I mean, seven needs a lot of work and a lot of money, you know, to really do it the correct way, I think. Um, and that's not even being talked about. That that project doesn't even exist at this point. But a traffic management organization group could advocate for such a project and could start talking about that project that might happen 30 years from now. Um, so but it is I I don't know Allison if you if you have any insight on it, but it's it's kind of the norm for these. You know, Trunk Highway 5 has one, 494, um 12 has one. U there's all these different groups that that have kind of an organized effort to advocate for lo local funding for those roads. >> Yeah. I think when we look at what this what the study includes, it's it's a lot it's a lot of improvements in the corridor. And when we look at um I heard council commenting on well, you know, Highway 7 out here in Minitrista, we're not seeing those traffic volumes, which is true. As the as as an engineer, I look at that as a guiding document. as miniaturista continues to grow and the west metro continues to grow um we look at access management for for the future and setting things up in a smart fashion and you have a guiding document. So I think that I think that there's been some great preliminary work and when when we look at what MDOT is looking to do with a resurfacing project in 2029 um the discussion became well we can't do some of these intersection improvements that were identified but the um the median is a relatively lower cost and so should they explore that option so so I think that um you know It's it's a good discussion to have with Mandot representatives as far as you know understanding the goal of the corridor study to improve safety throughout there. But I think the the council is bringing up some really good questions. Is is now the time to do some of those median uh you know to put in a median without some of these intersection improvements? And also and and they've been very receptive to this is this isn't like um you know up in Minnetonka and you know for that matter anything from rolling ac not even rolling acres but particularly 41 and east there's no interconnectivity of the local roads in Minatrista to other areas their only access for most cases is highway 7 and so and and the mindot staff understands that and I think that it's just a good opportunity to have those conversations. s the the concerns with increased um uh not just drive times but certainly increased response times for emergency services if you're putting in that concrete median. So I I encourage I encourage this the this conversation to continue. Um just but again just knowing that the the guiding document and I think just my gut feeling from the residents as a whole is they see all these improvements and they think it's happening in 5 years and it's not. Um it's it's it's a long-term plan. Um but I think when we look at you know as developing in Minitrista we certainly will turn to that document to look at access management so that um we can keep the traveling traffic as safe as possible if that makes sense. >> If you look at highway 5 is a prime example. I mean that was from the Eden Prairie corridor all the way to 41. That was on the books you know when I was at Eden when I was at Chan way back in the 80s. That was on for 20 years before that. it finally came through and happened and now the other part of it that's been there has still been on the books for over 20 years from 41 to um Victoria and that is finally going to be happening here ne this year starting this year so you know you could be looking at 20 30 40 years yet honestly for seven I mean highway 101 in Chanhassen was also on the books for over 50 years you know before it was upgraded and stuff so I mean it's they're process. These are just like you say, planning documents or CI documents to kind of look at this stuff and figure it out. And, you know, unfortunately by the time it gets out to us, you know, it's going to be, you know, quite a while. It's unfortunate that the overlay can't happen before all the highway 5 traffic gets diverted to seven. >> Yeah. How long is the highway 5 project supposed to last? >> Up to at least two years. Almost three. >> And all that's going to get routed over to seven, correct? For the most part. I mean >> seven and to the county roads. >> Yep. Further south. Mhm. >> Yeah. >> So seven is just going to get even more destroyed in the next years before they >> unfortunately. Yeah. Yeah. So the traffic, if I may, the traffic management organization isn't something that you're going to see a quick fix on this. This is kind of a decadesl long group. Um, and it's not to say that if if there is a JPA, I think I think there is some value in it. Like, right, if we want to play the game of of trying to get money for this road, which I think we hear a lot about, um, it'd be good to have an organized group of cities that can help advocate for that. um being that there isn't likely going to be a financial ask right away for it there depending on how it goes and if we can get you know I know there's a bill right now to fund it again for another couple years um in the legislature but that's kind of unheard of for these private TMO their private TMO groups to actually get state funding. So, um I'm not sure if if this is something we should continue to pursue or if we should, you know, there there really is to me not harm in it in us going to these meetings cuz that's we do a lot of meetings, right? Um but if there's, you know, it it takes that next level step if there's like a financial ask. So, that's kind of where we're at. um just to kind of give an update on this to see what's if you're all right, you know, continuing down that path of continuing to meet and at some point in time in the next few months, you might see a a JPA um come to city council for you to evaluate uh or if if the direction is maybe you should just kind of walk away. Um it it you know, I think there is some value in it in in having a group. um it's just the financial contribution is where you guys have to come in and make that decision if that's um >> which is going to be the next step. If we do a JPA then next they'll ask for money which I think is wrong and so I I think continuing to meet and then doing a JPA would be a waste because I don't think we should throw money at our state fixing a road. I'm already throwing money at the state fixing the road. That's my thought. Well, I wouldn't think though I'm not sure if disengaging though would be the right thing because if we if they are the louder voice in the region then it'll be a loud voice and then Minatrista's little squeaky voice because >> we're already going to be not I mean they're look at the cities on this list. They're not going to care what we want. I mean Minnetonka's going to get what they want. They're probably the primary they're the reason this needs to be fixed because of all the accidents in Minnetonka. Yeah, there's there's a lot of right now in my mind. They're going to fix the more hightra, high volume areas to the east eventually, you know, 5, 10, 15, 20 years down the road. That'll be us. >> And I would hope that our neighbors would support us. You know, this TMO would support, you know, support us when we need that support. >> Well, and that's a good point. Like, so we throw money at it there. We're not a priority on the fixed list. So even if we throw money at this group and continue to do these meetings, they're going to fix again. All of our money will be going to other areas and other communities. >> I see this as someone who drives on Highway 7 twice a day, almost every day. Actually, every day. So, >> and there I mean there is, you know, one project kind of in our area that that this additional this keep in mind this additional $1 million ask is for some of the MDOT recommended improvements um with that one being on Wildwood. >> So, why doesn't MDOT budget for the improvements? Like if they recommend this, they get a budget, they have a list of roads. Why aren't they allocating their budget accurately to cover this? Well, my take is that they are focused on maintenance first, right? Because this is a mill and overlay project. That's it. The safety improvements came after the fact, after that project was, you know, slated and and funded. And they're like, "Oh, by the way, if we want to do some other things to enhance it, we can do, you know, this big big list of things." Um, and I think the other piece is that Mindot doesn't receive enough funding to do everything that they want to do or that they need to do. Um, I don't know if Allison, you're kind of perked up. You might have some more input on that. >> The other thing I would uh I would also mention is I though I'm not intimately familiar with the rightway through the corridor. My I would venture to guess that that Mandot has a significant amount of right-of-way acquisition needs through the corridor and that takes years. So they have to have a a preliminary plan done. Then they have to go through negot that's a multi-year process that adds to the the project schedule. >> Yeah. >> Well, it sounds like some of the other communities don't want to put money in either. So, I think I kind of agree with Brian that maybe just keeping talking, you know, that keeps us in the game and and if it comes to it doesn't sound like other people are going to want to fund it either. So, so um I think it couldn't hurt to to be involved to know what's going on. >> So, what's the the JPA just sort of would solidify it or something because it sounds like people are meeting now already. So, I haven't been involved in this. Yeah, I was asking for the >> outside observer, but what would what would preclude anyone from keeping meeting right now or what the JPA just get more buy in? >> Yeah, why can't we just keep meeting without forming a JPA? >> I guess yeah, >> you could I think it would just maybe have more of a backbone, I think, you know, maybe optically. I there really wouldn't be. >> Isn't optics better if you literally list out every single city involved instead of just this one organization? >> Yeah, I don't I don't Yeah, I don't know. Um, but that's generally how these traffic management organizations work is that it's a collaborative of a bunch of different communities and stakeholders and and things of that nature. Um, but yeah, it is a long-term long-term effort. One one scenario I think that just popped into my head that you know I think we should maybe talk about is if there is a financial ask of let's say $500 for a grant application or somebody to write a grant um how would you want to proceed with if we if we would you know even if we don't let's say we don't even do a JPA and we just kind of keep meeting if there's a grant for something um how would you want to approach that you know $500 is a is a smaller amount, right? Um would that be something that you would expect to come to city council or is it something that could be approved administratively or or you know something like that? You know, if we go down the path of let's say the JPA wheels fall off and we don't do a JPA but we still have a TMO and they still want to apply for things, you know, that scenario could come up. >> Think it should come to council. >> Yeah. Okay. I mean, I I don't see why if we need grant money to do this project, Mandot isn't requesting grant money to this project. They have hundreds of employees. So, if this is a priority to add the safety to it, then Mandot has the staff and workforce to write grant proposals and ask our legislators to do things. I mean, they they've got so many employees. I'm looking at their hierarchy right now. It's ridiculous. Like, they literally have someone in charge of government affairs. They could be writing proposals. Again, I don't think we should throw money at it when there's an entire department for, you know, Department of Transportation. >> Yeah. And what I don't want what I don't want to happen and just, you know, is for us to miss out on any opportunities because I I I think you're right, but I don't think it that's the way it works. Um, unfortunately, um, >> well, it doesn't work that way because people keep doing this and throwing money at consultants and other people to fix things when the people who are supposed to be doing this aren't doing it. the 200,000 close to being gone. Are they giving an update on that or >> Yeah, it's pretty close to being gone. Yeah, I mean it's been rolling for almost two years now and uh you know monthly meetings with consult multiple consultants at each meeting that adds up over time. So um and that's part of the reason why the request is out there, you know, for the legislature to to fund it again. So, from from my perspective, I don't want to miss out on any opportunity that could potentially better trunk Highway 7. I don't think there's there's much um harm in hanging around, you know, in this group, but obviously we'll take your direction or I'll take your direction on how we want to proceed. Um but, you know, we are part of the the trunk highway 7 um safety coalition. I think that's what their their official name is. Um they don't really ask us for money. They just kind of get get more public safety centered grants that they it's a it's a larger group, but they they kind of take that on um staff-wise. In this case, I think unfairly the city of Shorewood's been taking on most of the administrative, you know, things that So um that's part of the other reason is, you know, they they're kind of getting burnt out as well. >> They can say no. >> They can I have no problem with us continuing to meet, but I don't think we should do anything beyond have meetings. >> What does the joint agreement do more than just having a meeting? What's the need for that? >> If there's no financial ties or financial contributions, it's just a a document saying, "Hey, we're all we're all in this together." I mean, that's about it. >> Isn't that what we're supposed to be? >> Yeah. Isn't that the point of the meetings? What I just see if we do this JPA then somewhere the next step is going to be well half of them vote to spend the money and then the ones who don't are just going to be forced to spend it because of how the JPA will be developed and worked or coerced into it for lack of a better word. If if we just keep holding meetings that's fine. But again, like I said, like I don't think we should throw money at this. Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Brian, your thoughts? >> No, I I agree with that. I was just almost thinking that if there needs to be two coalitions, a western coalition, because I think our needs are significantly different than those of Minnotonka. >> That makes sense. >> Yeah. >> Makes way more sense. >> It's less expensive. Yes. Yeah, >> I think maybe um I mean there's obviously focus on the eastern corridor because of all the accidents, you know, so higher population centers. >> So what I'm hearing is uh continue to meet, >> right? Is that am I saying hearing? >> Yep. >> Continue to meet um and then kind of go from there. I'll tell you the the meetings are kind of stalled out in the with the JPA talk because there's a lot of you know push back about financing. We're getting some of the smaller communities saying yes, let's do it. You know, and the larger communities that would contribute more based on some of the formulas saying, well, let's take a step back. >> Are the formulas based on population or home values? >> Oh, it's all No, not home home values. Um, unfortunately, most of these are related to like linear footage or, you know, footage of road through your community. >> Oh, that's even worse than for us. >> Yeah. So we have a significant amount of of highway 7 through our community. So I think we were like the number >> no >> we were the number two contributor um in some of the formulas. So >> yeah no >> but I can take this back to the group. I think we have another meeting in April um the feedback and see if uh what other other communities are saying too but it seems to be somewhat similar to what we have going on. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> If I can just add one thing for the safety commission, we have a memor memorandum of understanding and it is kind of nice because it lays out what we're going to talk about and it gives us a voice at the table. So, it's not the same group but very similar. So, >> but that mean that's just like a document like a over it's not a JPA for l >> correct. Yeah. So, you're sense >> you're not entering into like a legal thing. You're just basically saying this is what we're going to talk about and let's not let's try to keep it to this. So >> so MOA JPA D. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> All right. Anything else? Any other discussion? >> No. >> And I apologize. I forgot to say at the beginning of the meeting who's here. So I was acting mayor Peter Vic, council members Peter Vickery, Claudia Lacy, Brian Govern are here. Our WSB engineer Alison Powki is here. Our director of public works Gary Peter is here. Our assistant city administration administrator Paul Balman is here. Our city administrator Jasper Krugal is here. Our director of finance Brian Grim is here. Our chief police is here. And remotely is Sarah Sansala, David Ael, and our city clerk Annerhoff. With that, is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor signify with I. I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes. Work session is adjourned.