fargo-st. cloud project phase iv open houses · 9/9/2009 · phase iv open house summary report...

Fargo-St. Cloud Project Phase IV Open Houses

Summary Report

August 2009

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report

Fargo to Monticello 345 kV Transmission Line Project Phase I Public Meetings Summary Report

1. Introduction 1

2. Venues 2

3. Format 2

4. General Notification 3

5. Meeting Attendance 5

6. Public Input 5

Tables

Table 1 Phase IV Open House Attendance by Location

Table 2 Phase IV Open House Attendance by Municipality

Table 3 Phase IV Open House Feedback from Comment Forms

Figures

Figure 1 General Open House Layout

Figure 2 Phase VI Open House Attendees

Figure 3 Phase I, Phase II, Phase III and Phase IV Open House Attendees

Appendices

A Open House Comment Form

B Newsletter

C Advertisement

1.

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report

1. Introduction

The following report summarizes the results of the fourth phase of open houses for the

Minnesota portion of the Fargo-St. Cloud 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line project

(Project).

CapX2020 hosted open houses on July 27-30 and August 3, 2009. Public notification

included advertisements and mailed invitations. The open houses were held at the

following locations throughout the project area between the times specified below.

Monday, July 27, 2009

5 – 8 p.m.

St. Mary’s School

210 N 3rd Street

Breckenridge, MN 56520

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

10 a.m. – 1 p.m.

Barnesville Public School Old Gymnasium

302 4th Street SE

Barnesville, MN 56514

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

5:30 – 8:30 p.m.

Best Western Bigwood Event Center

925 Western Avenue

Fergus Falls, MN 56537

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

10 a.m. – 1 p.m.

Barrett Community Center

109 Barrett Ave

Barrett, MN 56311

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

5 – 8 p.m.

Broadway Ballroom

115 30th Avenue E

Alexandria, MN 56308

Thursday, July 30, 2009

5 – 8 p.m.

Melrose High School

546 5th Avenue E

Melrose, MN 56352

Monday, August 3, 2009

5 – 8 p.m.

Albany Elementary School

10 Forest Avenue

Albany, MN 56307

Invitations to the fourth phase of open houses were mailed to approximately 37,000

stakeholders within the notice corridors.

The purpose of the fourth phase of open houses was to:

2

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report

Present proposed routes

o For the Minnesota portion, the Fargo-St. Cloud project was in the proposed

routes phase.

Seek feedback from attendees

o Each attendee was offered and encouraged to fill out a comment form and

provide feedback on the route options. Appendix A contains a copy of the

comment form.

This was the final phase of open houses for the Minnesota portion of the Fargo-St.

Cloud project. A final phase of community outreach for the remaining portion of the

Fargo-St. Cloud project in North Dakota is planned for 2010.

2. Venues

Each open house took place at a different location within the project area. To

accommodate large crowds, the venues varied – hotel banquet rooms, school halls,

local organization buildings, etc. – and were selected to offer the public multiple

opportunities and dates to attend.

3. Format

Each open house was interactive. Attendees arrived at each open house between

specified hours, received Project information, viewed information display boards, and

spoke one-on-one with CapX2020 personnel and their consultants at different stations

throughout the room. This format is preferred for several reasons: the duration typically

accommodates a larger audience; individuals feel more comfortable asking questions

one-on-one with Project representatives; it sets the stage of expectation for future open

houses, as the intended audience will continue to evolve throughout the process. An

example of the general open house layout is shown in Figure 1. Please note that

because the open houses were held at different locations, each meeting’s layout may

have varied slightly from what is depicted in the figure.

Each attendee had an opportunity to collect Project informational handouts such as

Project fact sheets, including on electric and magnetic fields (EMF), permitting

requirements and many more. Copies of this information can be found on the Project

website (www.capx2020.com).

Copies of the display boards used at the open houses are available to view at the

Project website (www.capx2020.com).

3

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report

The following is a brief description of each open house station:

Registration All attendees registered before entering the open house and received a

name tag. Registration information is used for future correspondence and as an

attendee record.

Project background At this station, attendees gained an understanding of why the

Project is necessary and how it will benefit their interests.

Engineering At this station, CapX2020 engineers provided information on the

transmission line components and the various types of structures that may be built

Attendees viewed hands-on displays, such as a conductor section, and had an

opportunity to ask specific questions about transmission lines, their operation and

construction.

Video viewing area Attendees viewed a video on transmission line construction,

which covered the process from surveying to stringing of lines.

Routing and environmental considerations Attendees were provided with a

detailed description of the routing process. Map boards were used to illustrate the step-

by-step routing process. Potential route alternatives were presented. Attendees had an

opportunity to ask questions about the route selection process.

Map station Attendees viewed detailed project maps and talked with CapX2020

representatives about their property in relationship to the proposed routes.

Interactive GIS stations – Two interactive Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

stations provided attendees the opportunity to enter specific comments about a point,

area or linear feature, as the GIS was projected onto a large screen. Attendees

requested detailed aerial maps of their property or properties as they related to the

project area. These maps were then printed for the attendees.

Comment station Each attendee was offered and encouraged to complete a

comment form at the fourth phase of open houses. Appendix A contains a copy of the

comment form.

4. General Notification

The following methods were used to publicize the open houses:

4

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report

Newsletters informing the public of the open houses were mailed to approximately

37,000 stakeholders within the project notice corridors. Stakeholders included

individuals, groups and agencies identified as having property located within the

notice corridors. A copy of the newsletter can be found in Appendix B.

Advertisements announcing the open houses were published in the following

newspapers:

Albany Stearns-Morrison Enterprise 7/21/09

Alexandria Echo Press 7/17/09

Barnesville Record-Review 7/20/09

Belgrade Observer7/22/09

Bonanza Valley Voice, Brooten 7/16/09

Clearwater Tribune 7/18/09

Cold Spring Record 7/21/09

Fargo Forum7/17/09

Fergus Falls Daily Journal 7/19/09

Grant County Herald, Elbow Lake 7/22/09

Herman Review 7/16/09

Hoffman Tribune7/16/09

Melrose Beacon 7/18/09

Monticello Times 7/16/09

Osakis Review 7/21/09

Pope County Tribune, Glenwood 7/20/09

Sauk Centre Herald 7/21/09

St. Cloud Times7/21/09

St. Joseph Newsleader 7/17/09

Wahpeton-Breckenridge Daily News 7/19/09

West Douglas County Record, Evansville7/16/09

Wheaton Gazette7/21/09

A copy of the advertisement can be found in Appendix C.

5

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report

The Project website (http://www.CapX2020.com) was referenced in all public

information materials including the Project brochure, newsletters, fact sheets and

comment form.

A toll-free hotline (1-866-876-2869) was created for the Project and was

referenced in all public information pieces including the Project brochure,

newsletters and fact sheets. A representative answers calls and directs the caller’s

questions to a CapX2020 partner representative.

A general e-mail address ([email protected]), which allows people to e-

mail questions to representatives, was also created and was referenced in all

public information pieces including the Project brochure, newsletters and fact

sheets.

5. Meeting Attendance

Registered attendance at the fourth phase of open houses totalled 439 people and

included residents of the project area, local business owners, local organizations,

energy sector representatives, and government agency representatives.

Due to the project area’s size, seven open houses were held at locations throughout

the project area. A listing of the number of attendees per public meeting location and

date is provided in Table 1. If an attendee was unable to attend at one meeting

location, the next closest meeting offered an opportunity to attend on another day.

Table 2 provides a list of all 439 attendees by municipality. The distribution of

attendees by municipality throughout the project area can be seen in Figure 2.

Phase IV Open Houses attendance was slightly lower than at the Phase III Open

Houses in May and June 2008. The Phase IV attendee distribution was similar to

Phase III, with the concentration of attendees focused around the city centers and

meeting locations. Figure 3 shows the attendee distribution for Phase I, Phase II,

Phase III and Phase IV of the open house process.

6. Public Input

Table 3 lists attendee comments submitted during the fourth phase of open houses.

This summary reflects questions and comments directed to the Project team during the

meetings and those submitted on the comment forms.

The summary has been prepared based on a review of 96 comment forms completed

and submitted by attendees at the fourth phase of open houses.

6

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report

In general, attendees were concerned about:

Land use – property devaluation and planned development

Agricultural use – power lines interfering with operations

Visual impacts on natural surroundings

Health effects

Location of the proposed line

Proximity to homes

Making use of existing transmission line routes and road corridors

Continuing public communication

Costs

Stray voltage

Impacts to businesses

Siting criteria

Interference with TV, radio and cell phones

Substation location

Currently hosting a transmission line or pipeline and don’t want to host anything

else

Impacts to the environment including lakes, wetlands, animals and vegetation

Questions from comment forms were addressed by a letter, phone call or email from a

CapX2020 representative. The information provided on the comment forms is directly

utilized in the routing process as well as the community outreach process.

7

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report

Tables

8

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report

Table 1 Phase IV Open House Attendance by Location

Date Location Attendance July 27, 2009 Breckenridge, MN 20 July 28, 2009 Barnesville, MN 20 July 28, 2009 Fergus Falls, MN 37 July 29, 2009 Barrett, MN 49 July 29, 2009 Alexandria, MN 118 July 30, 2009 Melrose, MN 82 August 3, 2009 Albany, MN 113 Total 439

9

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report


Municipality Attendance

Albany 42

Alexandria 58

Ashby 4

Avon 8

Baker 1

Barnesville 7

Barrett 7

Brandon 1

Breckenridge 6

Burtrum 1

Campbell 2

Clearwater 1

Clitherall 1

Cold Spring 8

Collegeville 1

Dalton 3

Detroit Lakes 4

Elbow Lake 15

Elk River 1

Evansville 3

Fairmount 2

Fargo 1

Farwell 5

Fergus Falls 23

Freeport 16

Fridley 1

Garfield 6

Glenwood 4

Glyndon 2

10

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report


Municipality Attendance

Hancock 2

Herman 2

Hoffman 9

Holdingford 2

Holmes City 1

Horace 1

Kensington 11

Lowry 4

Melrose 37

Miltona 1

Moorhead 4

Norcross 1

Northfield 2

Osakis 25

Paynesville 2

Richmond 2

Rothsay 5

Sabin 4

Sartell 2

Sauk Centre 42

St. Cloud 12

St. Joseph 9

Unknown 8

Vergas 2

Villard 1

Wahpeton 5

Waite Park 5

Wendell 1

Wolverton 3

Total 439

11

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report


Question/Information Comments

Is there any additional

information related to the

potential route alternatives

that we should be aware of?

I farm and am most interested that you concentrate the power

lines on section lines or other existing corridors such as roads

and highways. It’s a safety risk if you place poles in the center of

fields.

As these lines are primarily needed for the urban areas, routing

on/along public highways corridors makes sense.

We own 4 quarters of farmland south of Moorhead in sections

28, 34 and 35. We currently have a power line on the east side

of SW¼ of section 28 that serves Moorhead. This line is located

on the property line between the railroad and our farmland. This

line is a single wood pole and is less obtrusive to our farming

operations. However, we also have an Ottertail power line that is

located 70 feet into our farmland in the N½ of section 34 and the

NW¼ of section 35. We have farmed around these double wood

poles for forty years. Ottertail paid a small one-time payment for

an easement that they can still use forty years later and on into

the future and make no more payments. Our costs still continue

for rent, taxes, and insurance, added seed and chemicals. We

lose the income on land the poles are on and around the poles

where we overlap to fill in the area around the poles. We have

the liability of driving past these poles. We receive no rent and no

profit. Own neighbours who farm along side get to use all their

land. If we had to let the transmission cross N½ sec 34 and

NW¼ sec 35, it would be preferable to put all poles and lines on

one set of single metal poles. This would lessen the impact on

our farm.

Dwelling on north side of section 35, Elmwood Township along

County 63. Loss of farmland.

Quarter mile north of township 63 on section line.

Pipeline runs through this area not far from our home.

Buse residents indicate they do not want this line across the

township. On my property there is a buried gas line 60 feet south

of I-94 along Ottertail County 1, which is also +/- 40 north of a

wetland slew. Above the slew to the south is my building site. On

the east end of my property, the pipeline is approximately 100

12

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report



feet south of I-94. This narrow strip of land is farmed for hay

land. Really don’t want to lose any of this hay land! 1) Use the

south route!!! 2) Stay on the north side of I-94 by section 9 of

Buse Township of Ottertail County.

There are many homes along County Road 4.

I will submit a map at a later date.

I am the MnDOT District 4 Utilities coordinator. I am wondering if

the information viewed is available in PDF files by email.

Best route – I-94 the whole way.

This would possibly go right in my back yard! Raising a family

with electrical lines running through the property does not excite

me.

We own a dairy in section 35, Ashly Township, Stearns County

just to the south of the 1,000 foot potential route. Please be sure

that we are unaffected by the transmission lines with our metal

buildings.

This route would be an eyesore for 66 lake shore owners on

Pocket Lake, and the end of Lakeview Resort, that has been in

business for 50 years.

I believe it is a must that MnDOT lets the power line build within

a distance of 20 feet or less from the interstate fence, which

would be much better for nearly all landowners.

The northern route around Melrose would be better because it

would impact residential areas less. The southern route would be

closer to more houses and residential and if Melrose ever grew

and expanded to the south the power line would be in the way.

Pertaining to the routes near Melrose, I feel the northern route

would be a better option because it is further from residential

areas and would have less impact on the current population and

future growth of the city of Melrose.

The south route through Melrose needs to be examined. Most of

the city is skirted, but not the eastern most area. Please consider

moving that with the section line to the east.

13

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report



Please use the I-94 corridor.

I don’t want it in my yard.

Yes, the alternative route would go right through our yard. We

live on a dead end road. We farm and we have hunting land. We

just built a new house and the route would be right next to it.

We don’t want the northern route.

I am putting in a private grass airstrip that would be directly

impacted, safety wise, by power lines of this height. The

directions are 230° and 50°, 230° would mean taking off and

clearing very high power lines if they were there. The land is

taken out of CRP and already laid out by Stearns County FSA. It

should be operational in 2010.

Transmission lines on two sides of property are unacceptable.

Also, wetlands with CRP contract involved as well as danger of

young children around stray voltage, which is real. No political

B.S. please.

Why the jog onto Island Lake Road? Run the power line along

the interstate, bury in tricky areas.

R-1 zoning south of Albany (five miles).

The city of Albany will provide written comments on the three

routes proposed and such to be forwarded to Darrin Lahr.

How it will affect businesses along the route. The construction of

this along an optional corridor will directly affect our business.

Why not go in a straight line and impact less people.

In section 17, Avon Township along 360th Street, there is 300

foot tower on the south side of the road.

Island Lake Road is a narrow township road with numerous

houses close to the road. It doesn’t make sense to erect a huge

power line along that route.

Proposed southern route affects many homes close to Island

Lake Road and 260th Avenue. Also, wetlands in area make this

route undesirable.

14

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report



Sensitivity for stray voltage for dairy farmers needs to be

addressed.

The potential route would cross or border my field which has

drain tile every 60 feet at a cost of $600.00 an acre.

If Brockway Township incorporates into a city, will this affect the

route? Next week is a hearing regarding this issue.

Island Lake Road is a sensitive area just as the Avon Hills Area

is.

Please do not put the substation in Waite Park.

1) Cluster development in the works with approximately 15

homes for future development area of Highway 10 and 380th

Street. 2) Most of the northwest corner of Albany Township going

into Krain Township is in a 5,000 acre footprint that a wind

company is attempting to set up a wind farm. This includes

Highway 39, which is part of one of your proposed routes.

50-foot electrical service cable easement on property, also oil

pipeline easement running through north to south on property,

wind farm easement on total property.

We would like to put an irrigation system on the proposed route.

We would like the line to go south of the property so we could

utilize the 80 acre field.

Along the interstate we already have transmission line, fiberoptic

cables, Woebegon Trail, we own land on both sides of the

interstate and always already have to go through Freeport, a six-

minute round trip. We have enough; it’s someone else’s turn.

This is not a matter of not in my backyard. It’s a matter of not

everything in my backyard. We have a gas pipeline, county road,

bike trail, numerous large fiberoptic lines, three-phase line, not to

mention an interstate highway. If there is no other way, please

consider putting the line on the west edge of the Freeport

Industrial Park.

After attending this meeting,

is there any additional

The only case supporting power poles in center of fields is if

there is a natural entity such as a duck pond where the poles

15

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report



information that you’d like to

receive regarding the

project?

could be placed.

All routing plans.

I believe the I-94 route would be the best.

Would like updates on finalized plan of placement of power line

and how close it will come to our property.

Our son is buying our farm.

Why not use the I-94 route?

Please keep me informed on state, federal, and any route

alternatives.

What is the best method of hearing my voice? I have many other

people in my neighbourhood that are proactive and not reactive.

Please keep me informed with the ongoing process.

Any and everything.

What does EMF do to RFD or other frequency driven equipment

on a farm? What levels are the EMF?

What the final routes are.

I am very concerned about the effect the EMF has on people

health wise. How many studies have you done on this and who

has actually done these studies?

Yes, we need to know when the public hearings are.

Notification of line movement.

Stay on/close to existing rights-of way. The southern routes

come through our yard between our home and the one our son

and family are buying from us. We have developed the farm into

five lost that were supposed to go on sale this fall. We were told

we would only be compensated for 150-foot strip through our

wooded land and by our natural environmental lake. We can’t

sell anything for two years because we don’t know what’s

happening.

I haven’t received much. Little has been communicated. I believe

the northern options will impact less people than the southern

16

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report



option.

Updates on route south and north of Albany.

Need to know what the proposed route will be and how we can

continue to voice opinion for or against.

More specific location, miss my property (10 acres).

I think using the right-of-way is dangerous to people slipping in

the ditch in the winter.

We did not receive any answers to these questions.

How will power lines affect my TV, cell phone reception?

No.

Concerns on housing and building setbacks, radio signal

interference, stray voltage.

Please keep us informed of any additional routes you could

follow for us to utilize this 80-acre field.

Please provide any other

comments you may have

(continue on back if

necessary).

As a landowner (farming), I feel that a route along I-94 would be

the least intrusive to my business. Routing along and directly

over property lines would be better than offsets from the line. Our

safety as farmers is important too. While not opposed to the line,

please keep landowners requests in mind. Would be happy to

show like respect to farms if asked.

Loss of farmland I rent on north side of Elkton Township, section

31. Loss of farmland I own on north side of Elmwood Township,

section 35.

Do not want it out my front door.

I think to follow I-94 would be the best route. Shortest and to get

out where the land is less productive.

Keep the structures as close to the I-94 fence as possible.

The value to rural home and property impacted by this power line

damage to property and trees, TV reception, health concerns,

and also concerns about possible future sale of home and loss of

value due to this project. I would not want this power line to go

17

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report



across my property. It would destroy and impact our property

greatly! If line were to run on south side of I-94, would not impact

our property that much. There are no homes in blue area of map

on that side of I-94. I do not want to see a power line on my

property or have it 75 feet away from my house or my other out

buildings.

We hope you chose the southern route. Our retirement acres are

in section 15 of Buse Township.

I would like to see the power line constructed along the right-of-

way line of I-94.

We don’t want any more lines by the transmission line. We want

it to go along I-94. We have land by both and it would cause less

farming problems if it goes by I-94.

We are interested in the route of CapX.

I suggest the southern (alternate) route be used as it crosses

mostly open and unoccupied farmland. As opposed to following

I-94 along the Park Region Geographic, which is heavily

occupied, many lakes and other geographic obstacles, scenic

views.

Why would the southern route when it is further and more costly

to utilities and consumers just because of MnDOT’s attitude

towards lines on their right-of-way? Makes no sense.

We are concerned about health issues and property values

related to the power line.

Please consider southern route from Alex to Sauk Centre. Our

operation is a 2,000-head dairy located on the south side

corridor of I-94.

Thank you for all the great information. Great explanations from

Darrin Lahr.

Use the interstate route.

Why run these on personal and private property? Why not stay

on I-94 with the least level of resistance from owners.

We think the line should follow the I-94 corridor and we would

18

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report



prefer to not have it right next to us.

See my note.

I think the poles should be right next to the interstate highway

right-of-way fence, not taking more land from the farmers.

I would like to see it put on the I-94 fence line. If possible it would

cause the least damage to the ag community which has already

dealt with the I-94 land acquisition.

We would like you to consider taking the southern country route

from Alexandria to Sauk Centre instead of the I-94 route. The I-

94 route will have many homes, businesses, farms, and irrigators

to deal with.

What do you do in the case where people are having health

issues with these lines? Do you recognize the issues and

actually do something or is the homeowner pretty much on their

own?

Our main comment is our dairy is within 150 feet of the road.

I support the interstate route. I have a new house and the other

route comes right through my yard and splits my land in half. It

will greatly depreciate my valuation.

We would like to see the interstate route; this would disrupt less

wildlife and farms. We do not want these power lines through our

yard.

Run the line along the I-94 corridor. What’s the difference, power

poles versus billboard poles? It’s already established, not using

our ag land.

Please don’t run the line on the northern route. Run along I-94.

I have a home which is close to the proposed route and road and

would like to see this moved to County Road 10, which had

homes further away from the line.

We are going to begin fighting this through every available

means.

Follow the interstate (I-94). This area has already been scarred.

19

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report



Combine corridor, interstate highway. Most direct route, most

efficient in my opinion. Can’t see a lot of jogging.

I think they should strongly look at old railroad bed corridors.

I am in breast cancer treatment and do not need power lines in

my front lawn. I don’t want anything interfering with my recovery.

Our property (10 acres) is valued at $300,000, after line goes in

our front yard our property won’t be worth anything. Who is going

to compensate us for the loss of value of our property?

Follow the northern route through St. Wendel Township near and

existing power line.

The northern route passes adjacent to a residential

neighbourhood in northwest St. Cloud. To my knowledge, no

residents of the neighbourhood were notified. Because of the

potential impact to the neighbourhood, these residents should be

notified of future meetings.

This time, 5 – 8 p.m., is milking time in the rural area. Dairy

farmers who might be affected by this project are unable to

attend.

Environmentally, I’d like to see you stay away from Bel Claire

substation site (turtles in Mud Lake). For the sake of Waite Park

expansion, I hope you don’t run lines up County Road 137.

I believe the substation would stifle the growth of the city of

Waite Park. Put the substation more towards Avon, out in the

middle of nowhere.

I live near Mapleview Road in Farming Township, Stearns

County. A 69 kV transmission currently exists along a section of

Mapleview Road. I suggest if this route is chosen, the 69 kV line

and new 345 kV be combined.

Comments: No access to my land!!

I am opposed to any deviation from I-94 corridor.

We are very concerned about the line coming down County

Road 4 in Lake Mary Township.

Regarding proposed route through section 34, Legrand

20

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report



Township, Douglas County. I own property on both sides of

Highway 27. I question why a more direct route through section

34 from west to east near the center of the township, was not

proposed. This change I believe would be more acceptable to

affected landowners.

I am very concerned about the possibility of this coming directly

in my backyard. I have three boys with the youngest being

almost six months. I recently moved to this area. If I would have

known this, I would not have considered buying this property.

This is not my idea of raising a family with this right in my back

yard.

Our commercial buildings are right at the edge of freeway right-

of-way on north side of I-94. Your line would have to stretch over

them; we have given permission for ALASD sewer to follow the

freeway on our north side of I-94 so we recommend the line go

along south side of freeway.

The route along interstate 94 makes so much sense that I’m

afraid that the government and the lawyers won’t route the

system where it makes the most sense.

We are concerned about the proposed alternative route around

the east and south side of Lake Mary going down County Road

21 and County Road 4 heading to North Dakota. We live on

Oriole Lane and are very much against this alternative route (as

are others in the area).

I am glad you’re not going by our land anymore. I think you

should follow the right-of-way of the freeway and not on

landowners land.

I like the proposed I-94 route as it makes use of existing corridor.

It should be placed in the interstate ROW rather than adjacent

private land as second choice immediately on the ROW line.

I feel strongly that the power line should run the most direct route

down the I-94 corridor. It does not make sense to jog south to

the Pope/Douglas County line and up 114. I strongly oppose that

alternative. Keep it on I-94 please! Keep costs down! Go straight

21

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report



line down I-94!

I feel that the shortest route between two main points is and

straight line up I-94 would be the shortest route from point A to B.

Cost wise I-94 makes much more sense. I strongly oppose the

County line 114 route. Keep I-94 corridor route.

The route along I-94 would be best as along 114 and no. 4 there

are numerous homes and resorts close to the roads.

We have a 110-acre piece of land that is parallel to the freeway

and is presently part of this project. We already have a power

line with a 150-foot easement and now they are talking about

putting in another 150-foot easement on the south side of our

land. We are presently in negotiations with a developer about our

land. This is going to make a difference to them. It was sold in

2006 and the developer was going to put up 167 homes on the

land. This is going to be a lot of residential homes there

eventually. There will be less of an impact on our land if these

lines were to be put across the freeway from us on the south

side of the rest stop. There is an easement there already. We do

not want this on our land. It will affect the price of our land and

ruin the scenic views of any homes to be built in the future.

Nobody wants to look out their window at a 100-foot steel tower.

If the I-94 corridor is used, please keep it out of all Melrose city

limits. Our home is within the 1,000-foot area on the east of

town. There are homes and a street (12th Ave) east of us and in

city limits. The rest of Melrose is skirted, please do that with the

east limit also.

Existing power line on north side of 440th Street. Ashley

Township, section 34 (north) –center pivot irrigation. Comes up

township road on southern edge of section line.

Please run the line along I-94. Already have billboards, why not

power poles. Don’t waste my farmland.

Bad move, through wetland and on the edge of the lake shore.

Avon Township is a developing township.

Bad for environment, also disturbing wetland. Get health effects

22

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report



with cattle.

Why would you not follow I-94? Not only would it be cheaper,

there would only be less than half as many people affected.

Please do not put the substation in Waite Park.

Thank you for holding this open house. It was informative.

23

Phase IV Open House

Summary Report

Figures

"Open House" SignStation 1

Registration Desk

and Name TagsStation 2

Project BackgroundStation 3

Engineering

GIS Station 1 GIS Station 2

Station 5Comments

DVD Viewing Area

TV

Detailed CorridorMap Area

Station 4Routing and

EnvironmentalConsiderations Area D

rin

ks / C

ookie

s

DRAWN BY: MLTeichertDATE: 08/19/09

REVISED: 08/19/09

M:\Clients\V-X\XCL\CapX\Fargo\_ArcGIS\2009\08\OH_Atendees\_XCL_CAPX_Fargo_OH_Layout.mxd

General Public Meeting LayoutGeneral Public Meeting Layout

REVISED: 08/19/09

M:\Clients\V-X\XCL\CapX\Fargo\_ArcGIS\2009\08\OH_Atendees\_XCL_CAPX_Fargo_OH_IV_Attendees.mxd

PHASE IV PUBLICPHASE IV PUBLICMEETING ATTENDEESMEETING ATTENDEES

Legend

55

115

235

123

25

54

27

79

109

225

210

106

287

22

10

127

15

18

95

6

238

84

329

87

228

9

106

28

108

24

34

46

237

11

415

78

200

32

23

64

7

27

210

28

127

29

13

9

47

114

371

104

236

227

169

10

75

59

59

71

75

1081

10

12

29

29

94

94

WADENA

CLAY

CASS

BIG STONE

BENTON

CASS

BECKER

TRAVERSE

STEVENS

TODD

SWIFT

STEARNS

SHERBURNE

OTTER TAIL

MORRISON

MILLE

LACS

MEEKER

POPE

GRANT

KANDIYOHI

ROBERTS

GRANT

HUBBARD

CROW WING

RICHLAND

WRIGHT

DOUGLAS

WILKIN

Fargo

Wahpeton

Alexandria

DetroitLakes

Melrose

Paynesville

SaukCentre

Barnesville

Fergus

Falls

PelicanRapids

SaintCloud

Monticello

Min

ne

so

t a

No

rth D

ak

ota

Min

nesota

So

uth

Dakota

North DakotaSouth Dakota

Phase IV Public MeetingAttendee Locations

Municipal Boundary

1:800,000

DATE: 08/19/09

DRAWN BY: MLTeichert

0 10 205

Miles

12

3

4

5

6

7

Minnesota

NorthDakota

SouthDakota

Wisconsin

Note: - Of the 439 individuals that attended the Phase IV Open Houses, 304 (69%) of the addresses were able to be geo-coded and placed on the map. - The other attendees’ addresses were not able to be geo-coded because of either 1) no address was provided, 2) addresses only included post office boxes or 3) addresses did not match geocoding database.

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

County Road / Secondary Road

REVISED: 08/19/09

M:\Clients\V-X\XCL\CapX\Fargo\_ArcGIS\2009\08\OH_Atendees\_XCL_CAPX_Fargo_OH_Attendees.mxd

PHASES I, II, III AND IV PHASES I, II, III AND IV PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDEESPUBLIC MEETING ATTENDEES

Legend

55

115

235

123

25

54

27

79

109

225

210

106

287

22

10

127

15

18

95

6

238

84

329

87

228

9

106

28

108

24

34

46

11

415

78

200

32

23

64

7

27

210

28

29

13

9

47

114

371

104

236

336

294

227

169

10

75

59

59

71

75

10

12

29

29

94

WADENA

CLAY

CASS

BIG STONE

BENTON

CASS

BECKER

TRAVERSE

STEVENS

TODD

SWIFT

STEARNS

SHERBURNE

OTTER TAIL

MORRISON

MILLE

LACS

MEEKER

POPE

GRANT

KANDIYOHI

ROBERTS

GRANT

HUBBARD

CROW WING

RICHLAND

WRIGHT

DOUGLAS

WILKIN

Fargo

Wahpeton

Alexandria

DetroitLakes

Melrose

Paynesville

SaukCentre

Barnesville

Fergus

Falls

PelicanRapids

SaintCloud

Monticello

Min

ne

so

t a

No

rth D

ak

ota

Min

nesota

So

uth

Dakota

North DakotaSouth Dakota

Phase I Public MeetingAttendee Locations

Phase II Public MeetingAttendee Locations

Phase III Public MeetingAttendee Locations

Phase IV Public MeetingAttendee Locations

Municipal Boundary

1:800,000

DATE: 08/19/09

DRAWN BY: MLTeichert

0 10 205

Miles

12

3

4

5

6

7

Minnesota

NorthDakota

SouthDakota

Wisconsin

Note: - Of the 448 individuals that attended the Phase I Open Houses, 270 (60%) of the addresses were able to be geo-coded and placed on the map. - Of the 392 individuals that attended the Phase II Open Houses, 266 (68%) of the addresses were able to be geo-coded and placed on the map. - Of the 374 individuals that attended the Phase III Open Houes, 281 (75%) of the addresses were able to be geo-coded and placed on the map. - Of the 439 individuals that attended the Phase IV Open Houses, 304 (69%) of the addresses were able to be geo-coded and placed on the map. - The other attendees’ addresses were not able to be geo-coded because of either 1) no address was provided, 2) addresses only included post office boxes or 3) addresses did not match geocoding database.

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

County Road / Secondary Road

A

Appendix A

Open House Comment Form

QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirree aanndd CCoommmmeenntt FFoorrmm

PPHHAASSEE 44 PPUUBBLLIICC MMEEEETTIINNGG RREEDD RRIIVVEERR TTOO SSTT.. CCLLOOUUDD TTRRAANNSSMMIISSSSIIOONN LLIINNEE PPRROOJJEECCTT

Thank you for your interest in this Project. Please complete the appropriate sections of this form to be included on the Project mailing list and to provide any comments or questions you would like addressed. You may submit your comments in writing in the space provided below and submit them either at the workshop or by mail to the address specified on the back of this form. You can also call 866-876-2869 for additional information. I would like to be kept informed of the ongoing progress of this Project. Please include my name on the

mailing list. PLEASE PRINT E-mail address (optional) Name Organization Street Address Daytime Phone No. (optional) City State Zip Code Is there any additional information related to the potential route alternatives that we should be aware of?

After attending this meeting, is there any additional information that you’d like to receive regarding the project?

Please provide any other comments you may have (continue on back if necessary).

Thank you for your time and interest in the Red River to St. Cloud Transmission Line Project WWWWWW..CCAAPPXX22002200..CCOOMM

Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency ● Dairyland Power Cooperative ● Great River Energy Minnesota Power Minnkota Power Cooperative ● Missouri River Energy Services ● Otter Tail Power Company ● Rochester Public Utilities

Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency ● Wisconsin Public Power Inc. ● Xcel Energy

Please fold in thirds, staple and affix postage.

Red River to St. Cloud Transmission Line Project P.O. Box 9451

Minneapolis, MN 55440-9451

Affix Postage

B

Appendix B

Newsletter

CapX2020UPDATEJ u l y 2 0 0 9

PresortedFirst-Class Mail

U.S. Postage

PAIDSaint Paul, MNPermit No. 3302

Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency • Dairyland Power Cooperative • Great River Energy Minnesota Power • Minnkota Power Cooperative • Missouri River Energy Services • Otter Tail Power Company

Rochester Public Utilities • Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency • WPPI Energy •Xcel Energy

CapX2020 seeks public input as it finalizes route optionsThe CapX2020 project team has narrowed the route options forthe Red River-St. Cloud project. Open houses have been sched-uled to take comments and feedback about route options that willbe proposed in the upcoming Minnesota Route Permit application,which will be filed in the fall.

North Dakota route options will be developed in 2010.More information on the North Dakota routing process willbe available later this year.The open houses will include maps that display the route options.Please stop by anytime to provide your comments on the routeoptions. No formal presentation is scheduled.

This line is one of three 345 kilovolt transmission lines proposedby CapX2020, a joint initiative of 11 transmission-owning utilitiesin Minnesota and the surrounding region. The initiative is designedto expand the electricity infrastructure to ensure continued reliableservice, meet the growth in electricity demand and support renew-able energy expansion.

If you are unable to attend an open house, submit comments byvisiting www.capx2020.com, calling 1-866-876-2869 or sendingat email to [email protected].

Contact informationProject development manager – Xcel Energy

Darrin Lahr, routing leadJerry Chezik, project managerPO Box 9451Minneapolis, MN [email protected]

What’s nextWhen CapX2020 finishes its evaluation and has determined itsfinal route options for the proposed transmission line, a RoutePermit application will be submitted to the Minnesota PublicUtilities Commission (MN PUC), beginning the process specified instate regulations. This includes public meetings, scoping for anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) and any routing additionsrecommended by the public or interested parties (recommenda-tions must be to the MN PUC within the first four months after anapplication has been filed), development of a citizen’s advisorytask force if needed, public hearings, a draft and final EIS and aRoute Permit decision. The North Dakota Public ServiceCommission oversees similar permitting processes in that state.After a comprehensive public process, the MN PUC determineswhether the Route Permit application should be granted, and if so,what route the transmission line should take.

The Minnesota Office of Energy Security is also significantlyinvolved in the process, including developing an EIS and conduct-ing public meetings regarding the report.

Monday, July 275 – 8 p.m.St. Mary’s School210 4th Street NorthBreckenridge, MN 56520

Tuesday, July 2810 a.m. – 1 p.m.Barnesville Public School – old gym302 3rd Street SEBarnesville, MN 56514

5:30 – 8:30 p.m.Best Western Bigwood Event Center952 Western AvenueFergus Falls, MN 56537

Wednesday, July 2910 a.m. – 1 p.m.Barrett Community Center109 Barrett AvenueBarrett, MN 56311

5 – 8 p.m.Broadway Ballroom115 30th Avenue EastAlexandria, MN 56308

Thursday, July 305 – 8 p.m.Melrose High School546 North 5th Avenue EastMelrose, MN 56352

Monday, August 35 – 8 p.m.Albany Elementary School10 Forest AvenueAlbany, MN 56307

Open house schedule

www.capx2020.com

PO Box 9451 | Minneapolis, MN 55440-9451

CapX2020UPDATEJ u l y 2 0 0 9

The route options for the Red River-St. Cloud project, shown below, were developed based on information compiled frommeetings with local landowners and government officials, state and federal agencies, and other interested parties. Additional feedbackon the route options is welcomed at the open houses. The project team expects to file a Minnesota Route Permit application this fall.

Red River-St. Cloud potential route alternatives

Stay informedThe best way to participate is to stay informed. Follow progress on the individual agency websites and on the CapX2020 website atwww.capx2020.com.

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MN PUC): To view the full docket (all documents filed with the MN PUC), go to the agency’swebsite at www.puc.state.mn.us, click on “eDockets & eFilings” on the left-hand side and then click “Search Documents” and searchfor docket 06-1115. To view the Monticello-St. Cloud Route Permit application, search for docket ET-2, E002/TL-09-246.

Legend

North Dakota route options will be developed in 2010. More information on the North Dakota routing process will be available later this year.

C

Appendix C

Advertisement

~ P U B L I C N O T I C E ~CapX2020 seeks public input as they

finalize route optionsCapX2020 is hosting open houses onthe proposed Red River-St. Cloud 345kilovolt transmission line. Project infor-mation, including maps depicting po-tential route options, will be displayed.Please stop by anytime to provide yourcomments on the route options. No formal presentation is scheduled.

CapX2020 plans to file a Route Permitapplication for the Red River-St. Cloudtransmission line project with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission(MN PUC) in the fall. A Route Permit application for the Monticello-St. Cloud345 kV transmission line project wasfiled April 8, 2009.

This line is one of three 345 kV linesproposed by CapX2020, a joint initiativeof 11 transmission-owning utilities in

Minnesota and the surrounding region. The initiative is designed to expand the electric grid to ensurecontinued reliable service, meet thegrowth in electricity demand and support renewable energy expansion.

If you are unable to attend an openhouse, submit comments by visitingwww.CapX2020.com, calling 1-866-876-2869 or sending an email to [email protected].

For additional information on the regulatory process:

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (www.puc.state.mn.us)

Minnesota Department of Commerce (www.commerce.state.mn.us)

Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Great River Energy, Minnesota Power, Minnkota Power Cooperative, Missouri River Energy Services, Otter Tail Power Company, Rochester Public Utilities,

Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, WPPI Energy and Xcel Energy.

Monday, July 275 – 8 p.m.St. Mary’s School210 4th Street NorthBreckenridge, MN 56520

Tuesday, July 2810 a.m. – 1 p.m.Barnesville Public School – old gym302 3rd Street SEBarnesville, MN 56514

5:30 – 8:30 p.m.Best Western Bigwood Event Center952 Western AvenueFergus Falls, MN 56537

Wednesday, July 2910 a.m. – 1 p.m.Barrett Community Center109 Barrett AvenueBarrett, MN 563115 – 8 p.m.Broadway Ballroom115 30th Avenue EastAlexandria, MN 56308

Thursday, July 305 – 8 p.m.Melrose High School546 North 5th Avenue EastMelrose, MN 56352

Monday, August 35 – 8 p.m.Albany Elementary School10 Forest AvenueAlbany, MN 56307

Open house schedule