At the city council meeting on March 7th the agenda included the "Authorization to retain 3rd party review for Supplemental EAW for Mankato Motorsports Project" under "New Business".  Included in the packet for the meeting was a letter from the City Administrator to the Mayor and City Council going over the reason and purpose for the supplemented EAW.  This is not a "Supplemental EAW" as is claimed.  It is not a separate entity from the original EAW, it is information obtained to complete sections that were found to need further review.

At this time the supplemented EAW is available on the city's website to view, but it is not yet open for public comment.  The city is first discussing the need for a third-party reviewer.  The first time around the third-party review was done by Houston Engineering, Inc.  They have submitted a bid for this new review as have Braun Intertec.  In the March 7th letter referenced above, it was stated (twice) that the third-party review would be paid for by the project proposer.  

In the packet for the city council meeting last night, a letter from the City Administrator to the Mayor and City Council in regards to the third-party proposals stated that "The developer is not required to pay for a third-party review and has recently expressed that while compensation from him for the second 3rd-party review isn't unjustified, he feels that an effort to share the expense could be an equitable alternative for all parties".  This is a privately funded project.  The cost of a third-party reviewer should absolutely be on the developer.  Had the EAW been completed adequately the first time or the omission caught by the original third-party reviewer (Houston Engineering, Inc.), this second review probably wouldn't have been necessary.  That shouldn't be the city's expense. 

I was unable to attend last night's meeting as I had prior obligations but I submitted comments to be read during the public comment period or when appropriate during the meeting.  Instead of being read out loud, the council was told my comments were included in their packets.  My comments:

"Supplement: something that completes or enhances something else when added to it.

Supplemental: provided in addition to what is already present or available to complete or enhance it.

While discussion has referred to such, there actually is no legal process for a “Supplemental EAW” (not to be confused with a “Supplemental EIS” which does exist and can be easily found).  This has been discussed and confirmed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board as well as our lawyer.  I bring this up as it’s misleading to imply that this is simply an addition to the initial EAW when in fact it was information obtained to properly address issues that were inadequately discussed in the first place.  This is NOT a separate entity and with 3 new members on the council it would be appropriate for those members to be familiar with the entire project.  This is no different than a teacher returning a test to a student and providing them the opportunity to properly discuss an essay question as requested vs. providing the bare minimum to fill space.  Afterward is the rest of the test deemed irrelevant for the grade and the teacher can only base it on that one essay question?  No.  While it’s understood that the upcoming public comment period is to focus on the new supplemental information to complete the EAW, I would hope the council will familiarize themselves with the entire EAW to determine if further study will be needed.

While the city must accept the lowest responsible bid for a third-party reviewer, it’s concerning that the original reviewer, Houston Engineering, submitted the lowest bid after they failed to catch the lack of information that has resulted in the current situation.  It is not difficult to read those sections in the EAW and see the discussion requested (about the noise effect on wildlife and the cumulative effect on climate change) was incredibly inadequate provided the nature of the proposed project and its desired location.  It’s unfortunate there is a such a large gap in the bids, but I would hope the city would take the opportunity to not cut corners this time.  As it’s a privately funded project, it should absolutely be on the developer to cover the cost.  It could have been avoided by doing due diligence the first time.

Thank you for your time."

At one point a public hearing was mentioned and it's not clear if that is referring to the public comment period that will come with publication of the supplemented EAW (which will have a 30 day comment period) or an actual hearing where those comments will be publicly discussed.  If it's the latter, this hearing should include the developer - who has not faced the public since July 2019 and then actually made his presence known on one Zoom meeting in September 2020 to discuss the draft of the Developer's Agreement.  It's long past time for the developer to get back in front of the public to explain his proposal, clear up some misconceptions and answer some questions.