HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/11/29 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Joint ItSt. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES
MINNESOTA JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 29, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:40 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
School Board Members present: Board Chair Nancy Gores, Rolf Peterson, Bruce Richardson,
Pam Rykken, Larry Shapiro, Julie Sweitzer, and Jim Yarosh.
City Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Organizational Development Coordinator
(Ms. Gothberg), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), and Planning/Zoning
Supervisor(Ms. McMonigal).
Guests: Mark Amfahr (Amfahr Consulting), Gene Davis and Frank Loetterle, R.L. Banks, and
Jeanne Witzig(Kimley Horn Consulting).
Freight Rail Studies
Mr. Locke stated that the presentations this evening were prepared as a result of the two City
Council and School Board resolutions passed in July of this year regarding freight rail. One
resolution requested that the County more fully evaluate the potential routes for freight rail
identified in the 2009 TC&W freight realignment study and the second resolution was a
restatement of the City's 2001 position regarding freight rail. He explained that the City Council
passed another resolution updating its position regarding freight rail in light of the MN&S route
which emerged from the 2009 study as the recommended route for TC&W trains now going
through the Kenilworth comdor. The City's stated position was that the City would accept the
MN&S route if there were no other viable routes and if adequate mitigation was addressed. He
then introduced Mark Amfahr from Amfahr Consulting.
Mr. Amfahr explained that he focused his route analysis on alternative routes that could be used
to connect TC&W's rail network into the St. Paul area where TC&W delivers its freight to other
railroads; this analysis included the Chaska cut-off, Midtown and Highway 169 alternatives and
was intended to ensure that evaluation measures and cost factors were applied consistently. He
reviewed the evaluation measures he used in his analysis, including sound engineering, freight
rail operations, transportation system impacts, acquisitions/displacements, estimated costs in
2010 dollars, potential environmental risks, and implementation factors. He discussed the "west
connection options" alternative mentioned in the 2009 report. He indicated this was an
alternative for freight rail coming into the Twin Cities and was not a practical alternative for the
railroad because the majority of the freight rail traffic needs to travel east and all that the west
end offers is a diversion of 28 coal trains per year.
Chaska Cut-Off
Mr. Amfahr reviewed the Chaska cut-off alignment which would affect additional train traffic,
including present difficulties due to the housing developments, obstacles of crossing the
Minnesota River, and a steep bluff in the area. He stated that most of the environmental issues
were not significant until you get into town, where there is a community center and a school
yard, so there is no realistic chance of getting through this area today. He then summarized the
Chaska cut-off evaluation as follows:
Joint City Council/School Board Meeting -2- November 29,2010
Sound Engineering: This route can meet freight rail industry standards for operations. The
westbound grade would be a limitation for TC&W versus existing operations and would require
11 miles of new trackage including a new crossing of the Minnesota River.
Freight Rail Operations: The additional distance versus other routes would increase TC&W's
operating costs, TC&W would have to own and maintain additional trackage, TC&W would
need to operate over the UP trackage, and TC&W could serve a new customer in Chaska(United
Sugars).
Transportation System Impacts: Five new at-grade crossings would be required with no impact
to trails and there would be no impact to existing or planned transitways.
Acquisitions/Displacements: 25 housing units would be displaced at a total value of$9.4 million.
Estimated Cost: The total project cost would be $129.8 million (includes 30% contingency);
major elements include a new track, grade separated crossings and Minnesota River bridges.
Environmental Issues: The Minnesota River crossing likely requires an environmental impact
statement with an estimated time to complete of three to eight years due to the existence of
wetlands and other protected areas.
Implementation Factors: The principal constraint is the Minnesota River crossing and the
environmental documentation and permitting are significant. Construction would require
approvals/permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers, FRA, US EPA, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, MN DNR, MN PCA, MN SHPO, and local watershed
districts. In addition, TC&W must agree to own and maintain the new trackage, TC&W must
obtain trackage rights from UP, Mn/DOT must agree to crossing over TH 212, and Carver
County must agree to crossing over CR 40.
Highway 169
Mr. Amfahr discussed the Highway 169 corridor, stating that a connection would require
reconfiguring the 169/Excelsior Boulevard intersection. He stated that this area has a Super
Target, apartments, and townhomes along the right-of-way. He then summarized the Highway
169 evaluation as follows:
Sound Engineering: This route can meet freight rail industry standards for operations and would
require a new bridge over Minnehaha Creek and 2.7 miles of new track.
Freight Rail Operations: TC&W would most likely own and maintain the new track, TC&W
would need additional trackage rights from BNSF, and TC&W would reach Savage via the
existing St. Louis Park connection or via a new BNSF connection to the MN&S route.
Transportation System Impacts: This route would require that the 169/Excelsior Boulevard
interchange be reconfigured, as well as six new at-grade crossings (two in Hopkins and four in
St. Louis Park), would require reconstruction and/or relocation of the recreational trail, and
would have no impact to existing or planned transitways.
Acquisitions/Displacements: 131 housing units would be displaced at a total value of $38
million.
Joint City Council/School Board Meeting -3- November 29,2010
Estimated Cost: The total project cost would be $121.6 million (includes 30% contingency);
major elements include significant acquisition/displacements and the reconfiguration of the
169/Excelsior Boulevard intersection.
Environmental Issues: The impact of the bridge over Minnehaha Creek would need to be
assessed.
Implementation Factors: TC&W must agree to own and maintain the 2.7 miles of new track,
TC&W must obtain trackage rights from BNSF on the Wayzata subdivision, Mn/DOT and
FHWA must agree to modifications to Highway 169, the County must agree to the impact to
Excelsior Boulevard, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District must approve the bridge
construction over Minnehaha Creek.
Midtown Corridor
Mr. Amfahr stated that the Midtown corridor is the only other practical option other than the
Kenilworth corridor and MN&S that are currently being studied. He stated that one of the major
obstacles with the Midtown corridor is the bridges are all old and very low by today's standards.
He noted that this trail is a vital corridor in and out of the city and this option represents the most
complications due to the number of vehicles traveling in the area each day and would require a
grade separation. This option would also require digging down six feet for a total of four miles
with a retaining wall constructed on each side to allow for adequate clearance. He stated the
Sabo bridge presents a conflict and would require rebuilding somewhere else, removing it, or
reconfiguring it at a high cost. He then summarized the Midtown evaluation as follows:
Sound Engineering: This route would require significant modifications to meet freight rail
industry standards for operations, would require excavation of six feet of former rail bed to meet
the clearance requirement of 23 feet, and the quality of the bridge over the Mississippi River is
questionable.
Freight Rail Operations: TC&W must assume responsibility for ownership and maintenance of
4.4 miles of new track, TC&W must secure trackage rights from CP for a section from Hiawatha
Avenue east to St. Paul, and TC&W would need to continue using the connection at St. Louis
Park and the MN&S route to reach Savage. Mr. Amfahr noted that every one of the bridges is on
State Preservation Society property.
Transportation System Impacts: This route would require a reconfiguration of the Highway
55/Hiawatha Avenue and 28th Street intersection, both routes would be elevated resulting in four
new at-grade road crossings and closure of the South 5th and Humboldt Avenue at-grade
crossings, would result in the removal of the recently opened Sabo bridge over Highway
55/Hiawatha Avenue, would require reconstruction of the Hiawatha light rail line from 31g
Street to 26th Street, both the light rail line and TH 55 would experience closures and/or
disruptions during construction, negatively impacting users, and freight rail operation in this
corridor would directly conflict with the proposed Midtown streetcar project.
Acquisitions/Displacements: A single building east of Highway 55 would be displaced.
Estimated Cost: The total project cost would be$195.6 million (includes 30% contingency).
Joint City Council/School Board Meeting -4- November 29,2010
Environmental Issues: Unknown soil and subgrade conditions along the Midtown corridor, the
Midtown corridor is on the National Register of Histonc Places, and the Dean Parkway and Lake
of the Isles bridges are located on parkland.
Implementation Factors: TC&W must agree to maintain additional trackage, TC&W must obtain
trackage rights from CP east of Hiawatha Avenue, significant modifications would be needed to
the transportation system at Highway 55/Hiawatha Avenue, Mn/DOT and FHWA must agree to
reconstruction of Highway 55/Hiawatha Avenue, Minneapolis and FHWA must agree to
reconstruction or removal of the Sabo bridge, and the Met Council and FTA must agree to
reconstruction of the Hiawatha light rail.
Mr. Amfahr presented a summary comparison of the three alternatives, stating that the principal
challenges to the Chaska cut-off include permitting issues for the Minnesota River crossing and
TC&W is not in favor of this alternative. He advised that the Midtown scenario represents a
high cost versus the other scenarios, along with its conflict with transit and other development
plans in the Midtown corridor. He stated that the primary challenges with the Highway 169
scenario include the value and number of housing units impacted.
School Board Member Peterson requested information regarding the assumptions used for width
of the right-of-way in each of the alternative routes that were analyzed.
Mr. Amfahr stated that the right-of-way was defined by the previous railroad and is typically
100' or less. He added that each scenario assumed a 136 pound, class 3 rail.
Councilmember Sanger asked what efforts, if any, were made to quantify what it would cost to
compensate the railroad for the fact that there would be some operational challenges associated
with each scenario, and whether those costs were factored into the estimates presented.
Mr. Amfahr replied that those costs were not factored into the estimates, and noted that he only
looked at the physical route for each scenario in order to determine how much it would cost. He
stated that the data would then be turned over to TC&W and the various communities to
evaluate, and TC&W would be responsible,for providing an indication of how much it would
cost the railroad to operate under a given scenario.
School Board Member Sweitzer asked if the other river crossing depicted on the Chaska cut-off
map had been considered.
Mr. Amfahr replied that he looked at this option, but it is not physically possible to get from one
line to another due to the steep elevation.
School Board Member Richardson asked if TC&W was not in favor of the Chaska cut-off
because of the additional twenty miles it would add to their trips.
Mr. Amfahr stated that the additional miles were a major factor, but also because the grade is
steeper at 1% for many miles out of the valley, which would require TC&W to use additional
fuel and crews.
Mr. Locke introduced Gene Davis and Frank Loetterle of R.L. Banks, the consultants that
performed the analysis of how freight rail could be kept in the Kenilworth corridor along with
the light rail and dealing with the trails.
Joint City Council/School Board Meeting -5- November 29,2010
Mr. Loetterle advised that they looked at seven different scenarios: (1) all three alignments at
grade, (2) the bike trail relocated out of the corridor, (3) the bike trail as an elevated structure
through the corridor, (4) elevated light rail, (5) light rail in a tunnel through the corridor, (6) light
rail and freight rail sharing a track, and (7) light rail on a single track instead of two. He
discussed the evaluation measures, including sound engineering, freight rail operations (will
TC&W continue to have a safe, efficient, economical connection to St. Paul?), light rail
operations (can the light rail function as it is intended?), and other transportation system impacts
(what are the potential impacts to roads and commuter bike trails?). He noted that they did not
look at motor vehicle traffic impacts and conducted no traffic studies. He added that evaluation
measures included property impacts, potential environmental risks, histonc properties, water
quality, aesthetics, implementation factors, and estimated costs.
Mr. Davis reviewed the existing alignments in the corridor and stated that under the existing
alignment, TC&W has 50' of right-of-way, but noted the width is not uniform throughout the
corridor. He stated they used typical design criteria for freight rail, for bike trails, and for light
rail. He stated that for freight, they used a 50' minimum width if centered in the middle to allow
25' of clearance. He indicated that the light rail cross section is 38' and it goes along with what
the Hiawatha light rail has; the bike trail is a standard 20' for a two lane path, 8' wide with a 2'
shoulder on each side. He advised that when you put all three forms of transportation in the
same corridor, you need at least 94' for a 25' minimum between freight rail tracks and the closest
light rail track. He added that the 25' minimum is known in the industry, but that number may
be expanded in the future.
Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #1 (all three alignments at grade) and stated that given the need
for 94' for all three alignments in the corridor, there is a narrow stretch of right-of-way with
townhomes located nearby. He reviewed potential environmental risks which require
identification of any parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites,
districts or archeological sites in the project area and consulting with officials to include all
possible planning to minimize harm. He advised that with this scenario, potential environmental
risks include the properties owned by the Minneapolis Park Board that may fall under 4f
protection, including Cedar Lake Park, the Cedar-Isles channel, Cedar Lake Parkway, and Park
Siding Park. He stated that the current design of the light rail transit encroaches upon land as
part of the park at Cedar Lake. He stated another significant problem is that the railroad will
need to cross somewhere along this route requinng an additional light rail bridge, most likely
between the MN&S corridor and Wooddale Avenue. He summarized Scenario #1 as follows:
this scenario could be done from an engineenng standpoint, this scenario may have some 4f
impacts, the engineenng solution is reasonable, freight rail operations would be unchanged, light
rail operations would be maintained but with increased operating costs,but the biggest issue with
this scenario is the taking of 33 out of 57 townhomes.
Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #2 (the bike trail relocated out of the corridor) and stated that
this scenario used the current conceptual design plans for light rail under the theory that if light
rail is kept where it is, there would be room on the east side of the light rail where the bike trail
was removed. He advised that this scenario includes some property impacts and TC&W would
still have to connect to BNSF which would require TC&W to get on the other side of the light
rail, requiring another bridge. He stated that the Penn Avenue station would have to be up in the
air and represents a cost not currently being considered as part of the light rail alignment. He
indicated that the existing trail functions as a transportation trail that allows direct, easy and fast
access to downtown Minneapolis and an alternative that provides similar accessibility is not
readily apparent. He summarized Scenario #2 as follows: an engineering solution is reasonable,
Joint City Council/School Board Meeting -6- November 29,2010
freight rail operations would be unchanged, light rail operations would be maintained but with
increased operating costs, transportation system impacts include removal of the commuter bike
trail from the corridor, property acquisition of 117 housing units is required, and environmental
issues include potential 4f impacts to Park Board property, the Cedar-Isles channel, and Cedar
Lake Parkway.
Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #3 (the bike trail as an elevated structure through the corridor)
and stated the most important issue here is that this is not a friendly environment for people to be
biking. He advised that bike bridges would require barriers on the sides and above to protect
users from overhead catenary and to protect the freight rail trains from vandalism, and would
require an additional light rail bridge near the Penn Avenue station. He summarized Scenario #3
as follows: an engineering solution is not reasonable and creates unique or unusual problems,
freight rail operations would be unchanged, the light rail operations are maintained but with
increased operating costs, transportation system impacts include impairment of the functionality
of the commuter bike trail, acquisition of 117 housing units would be required, and
environmental issues include potential 4f impacts to Park Board property, the Cedar-Isles
channel, and Cedar Lake Parkway.
Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #4 (elevated light rail) and stated that this scenario would result
in some roller coastering of the light rail because there is insufficient room north of the West
Lake Street bridge for light rail to rise from ground level to full height before reaching the
narrow part of the corridor. He summarized Scenario #4 as follows: an engineering solution is
not reasonable and creates additional construction, maintenance or operational costs of an
extraordinary magnitude, freight rail operations would be unchanged, light rail operations are
maintained but with increased operating costs, transportation system impacts include
functionality of the bike trail, no acquisition of housing units would be required, and
environmental issues include potential 4f impacts to Park Board property, the Cedar-Isles
channel, and Cedar Lake Parkway. He noted that there are fairly significant aesthetic impacts
with this scenario and the cost analysis did not include noise walls or screens.
Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #5 (light rail in a tunnel through the corridor) and advised that
the bike trail would remain with light rail constructed through the corridor with portions in a
tunnel and freight rail constructed at grade. He indicated that this cut and cover alternative
would be impractical because of the weight of freight trains and the roof of this tunnel is a
continuous bridge running the entire length of the tunnel. He added that this alternative is also
impractical because of the Cedar-Isles channel; a deep tunnel has an unpredictable effect on
groundwater, requires continued maintenance, safety and security problems, and is vastly more
expensive than other available alternatives. He summarized Scenario #5 as follows: an
engineering solution is not reasonable and creates additional construction, maintenance or
operational costs of extraordinary magnitude, freight rail operations would be unchanged, light
rail operations are maintained but with increasing operating costs, the functionality of the
commuter bike trail would be maintained, no housing units would be acquired, and
environmental issues include potential parkland 4f impacts to Park Board property, the Cedar-
Isles channel, and Cedar Lake Parkway, as well as potential negative impacts on groundwater
flow and water quality.
Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #6 (light rail and freight rail sharing a track) and stated that a
shared track alignment would run through most of the corridor. He advised that the Federal Rail
Authority requires temporal separation of freight rail and light rail operations; because light rail
operates from 3:30 a.m. to 12:30 a.m., the time period available to TC&W would be too
Joint City Council/School Board Meeting -7- November 29,2010
restrictive. He stated that it would not be possible to share freight rail and light rail in this
corridor using TC&W's operating plan today. He added that this scenario would also require a
redesign of the stations and an adjustment to the station platform height would be necessary to
allow sufficient clearance for freight rail train equipment. He summanzed Scenario #6 as
follows: an engineering solution is not reasonable and represents a severe economic impact to
the freight rail railroad, freight rail operations would be impaired, light rail operations would be
maintained but with increased operating costs, this scenario includes a potential for modification
of new LRVs and retrofitting existing LRVs, transportation system impacts include maintaining
the functionality of the bike trail, no housing units would be acquired, and environmental issues
include potential 4f impacts to Park Board property, the Cedar-Isles channel, and Cedar Lake
Parkway.
Mr. Loetterle reviewed Scenario #7 (light rail on a single track instead of two) and stated that a
single track would subject the light rail line to operating restrictions that would prevent the line
from achieving its forecasted ridership, which is inconsistent with the stated Purpose and Need
of the project. He stated that if a single track were used in this entire section, it would be
difficult to maintain headways under 15 minutes and assumes that every train arrives at its mark
at the right moment every time in both directions. He then summarized Scenario #7 as follows:
an engineering solution is not reasonable and compromises the light rail project's Purpose and
Need, freight rail operations would be unchanged, light rail operations would be impaired,
transportation system impacts include maintaining the functionality of the bike trail, no housing
units would be acquired, and environmental issues include potential 4f impacts to Park Board
property, the Cedar-Isles channel, and Cedar Lake Parkway.
Mr. Loetterle advised that the first two options could be built and the last five options are not
reasonable because of cost and operational problems and fatal flaws. He stated that each of the
scenarios has impacts on light rail operations which could be manageable except for the single
track option, while scenarios #2 and #3 have to cope with the issue of the bike trail and its
functionality. He noted that the first scenario definitely has property impacts, while scenarios #2
and #3 might have significant impacts unless the light rail line is re-engineered; there is also an
environmental risk with most of these scenarios. He reviewed the cost estimates for each
scenario as follows: Scenario #1: $51-59 million, Scenario #2: $109-120 million, Scenario #3:
$71-88 million, Scenario #4: $112-139 million, Scenario #5: $203-230 million, Scenario #6:
$35-43 million, Scenario #7: $31-38 million. He reviewed the implementation factors and noted
that TC&W must agree to the track design, TC&W must have a safe, efficient, economical
connection to St. Paul, CP Rail must also agree to the track design, and CP Rail must agree to the
design of the light rail stations built next to freight rail tracks.
Mayor Jacobs asked if the cost estimates take into account any mitigation for existing properties
that might remain, e.g., sound walls.
Mr. Loetterle replied that they did not include any mitigation costs.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested information regarding laws governing the railroads and
whatever local control a city has over a local railroad in this process.
Mr. Davis stated that railroads are required under a common carrier obligation to service
industries and if they do not service those industries, then they can be held liable to the Surface
Transportation Board. He indicated that TC&W is an interested stakeholder and is represented
Joint City Council/School Board Meeting -8- November 29,2010
here this evening; getting TC&W involved early and talking with them about what they require
or what safety concerns they have will make this process easier.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding the railroad's decision making
process. She also asked what considerations are being given to pedestrians coming to the light
rail stations at Beltline and Wooddale to reduce safety issues at those stations.
Mr. Loetterle stated that if you put freight rail in the stretch between Louisiana and the Penn
Avenue station, you would have to think about how you want to get pedestrians across the
freight rail track during the time when freight rail trains are going by; for all scenarios that return
freight rail to the corridor, you have to think about these issues for Wooddale, Beltline, and Lake
Street.
Mr. Davis noted that the FRA controls railroad safety and operating issues and all other issues
concerning freight rail are handled through the Surface Transportation Board. He added that
their cost estimates did not reflect any changes to a typical light rail station.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there are any plans to re-look at the alignment of the light rail
within the Kenilworth corridor and if not, why not.
Ms. Katie Walker, Hennepin County Project Manager for the SWLRT project, stated that the
project has transitioned to the Met Council as the lead agency, so Met Council will be leading the
preliminary engineering work for the project. She advised that in general, the light rail has been
placed in the optimal spot in the corridor and there may be some minor modifications during the
engineering phase, but in general that alignment is fairly well set and has been placed there
because it needs to make certain curvatures of track and certain grades. She added that DEIS
document disclosed that freight rail would no longer be in the corridor and was the underlying
base assumption that went into the light rail design.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested further information regarding the timeframe for decisions
regarding funding.
Ms. Gail Dorfman, Hennepin County Commissioner, agreed that the County can ask the Met
Council and the FTA about the issue of moving light rail in the Kenilworth corridor. She
advised that the Met Council has applied to the FTA for project approval and they anticipate
hearing something in the next two months. She stated there is bipartisan support for this project
and if the Federal government approves the project, there is already some state bonding money
available, as well as $12 million from the County's Transit Improvement Board. She pointed out
that the project cannot proceed with preliminary engineering until approval is received from the
FTA. She discussed the timing for light rail and stated that in general, the best case scenario
would include construction during 2014, 2015, and 2016 with opening in 2017; whatever is
going to happen with freight rail will need to be done in 2013, money will need to be in place by
2012, and application for funds from the FRA will need to be done in 2011.
Councilmember Sanger asked if any of the alternative routes for freight rail relocation are off the
table for further discussion. She also asked when the City can expect to receive answers to the
questions contained in Mayor Jacobs's recent letter to the County and Mn/DOT regarding the
criteria being used to make decisions about freight rail relocation.
Joint City CounciVSchool Board Meeting -9- November 29,2010
Ms. Dorfman explained that because of the switch to the Kenilworth corridor, the County has an
agreement with CP and TC&W that stipulates that the County must provide a"safe, efficient and
economical route" for the TC&W trains currently on Kenilworth. She stated that the PMT is
looking at definitions of a higher standard of safety and the definition of efficient and
economical as determined by the railroads; the railroads have to agree to any location and they
have the ultimate thumbs up or down on this. She indicated that there is a significant level of
coordination required with other agencies to make this happen, including support from numerous
public and private partners. She stated that there is some question about the specific legal
authority that all the public entities have to impact that decision and the PMT clearly plays a role
related to the MN&S design and mitigation, but no one agency can make this decision. She
added that the process requires a fair amount of consensus about the criteria being used, about
what is the most viable and feasible alternative, as well as the approval of the railroad
companies; if consensus is not reached over the next year regarding freight rail location, design,
and mitigation, there is no question that the SWLRT project will be in jeopardy and the FTA has
been clear about that.
Mr. Mark Wagner, President of TC&W, stated that they need to study all of the materials
presented and was unsure how long it would take them; TC&W has determined that it will need
to hire consultants to help with their decision as well. He added that acceptable grades for
freight rail are much lower and they have trouble with a 1% grade; in addition, there are track
standards that are nationwide track standards.
Councilmember Mavity expressed appreciation to TC&W for attending and participating in this
meeting. She suggested that the City consider inviting TC&W to participate in discussions with
the Council to allow Council to better understand TC&W's decision-making process.
School Board Member Rykken requested further information regarding mitigation around
schools and what is done to keep kids safe.
Mr. Davis explained that supplemental measures include separating the lanes to create a
barricaded area, a security fence along the right-of-way, or a special gate at the walkway portion
of the crossing.
School Board Member Richardson stated that he did not want to see the tunnel option dismissed
out of hand. He acknowledged that a tunnel would be more expensive, but safety factors can be
built into this option that include protecting the groundwater. He stated that safety is a #1
concern, as well as noise and vibration mitigation around the school.
MN&S Update
Ms. Jeanne Witzig, Kimley Horn Consulting, provided an update regarding the MN&S freight
rail study and explained that the purpose of the study is to analyze potential design concepts,
environmental impacts, and potential mitigation measures associated with the potential
relocation of TC&W freight rail operations from the Kenilworth corridor onto the MN&S line.
She stated that key elements of the MN&S study include the development of a design concept
including capital cost estimates and conducting an environmental assessment (EAW) review at
the State level. She added that Mn/DOT is the responsible government unit (RGU) for the EAW
and as part of the EAW, they will study community impacts and if federal dollars are applied for,
it will go through a Federal environmental review process as well. She reviewed the PMT
Joint City Council/School Board Meeting -10- November 29,2010
process and stated that four meetings have been held to date. At the November 9 PMT meeting,
the preliminary baseline design concepts for the MN&S study were reviewed and a PMT open
house meeting will be held on December 16th to provide more information and receive
comments relative to the preliminary design concepts and mitigation measures. The PMT will
reconvene in January or February to discuss design concepts and further evaluate mitigation
measures, including a detailed noise vibration study, traffic impacts, soil contamination in the
corridor, and specific mitigation measures. She stated that this information will be presented in
the EAW and forwarded to Mn/DOT as part of the official review process. Comments will be
responded to in Findings of Fact and Mn/DOT will make a final environmental determination
that all impacts have been adequately evaluated and an overall project final report will be
prepared summarizing the overall process and outlining next steps.
Mr. Locke advised that the consultant's reports will be available online on the County's website
(www.hennepin.us/freightrail), MN&S study website (www.mnsrailstudy.org), and a link on the
City's website. He stated that Council will discuss the studies at its December 13th study session;
following that meeting, the City will talk to residents to get their input on the draft reports and
come back to the Council after the first of the year to discuss next steps.
Mayor Jacobs expressed his thanks to the consultants for their presentations and to the School
Board and residents for attending.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Nancy Stroth, ity Clerk Jeff Ja• a yor