Rochester City Council Study Session - March 10, 2026: Spongy Moth, Infrastructure, Housing Code, Homelessness
Rochester City Council Study Session - March 10, 2026
The City Council held a study session on March 10, 2026, covering four major agenda items: spongy moth management, a downtown infrastructure and transformation update, a housing code update, and an update on the Any Path Home homeless initiative. Presentations were given by Minnesota Department of Agriculture staff, city administration and community development staff, and Councilmember Dory. No formal votes were taken, but clear directions were provided on several issues.
Spongy Moth Management (Items 1-4)
- Presentation: Kimberly Tilling Kramers and John Larson from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture presented on spongy moth (formerly gypsy moth) management. The pest defoliates over 300 species of trees and is moving westward. For the first time, Olmsted County and Rochester are targeted for treatment due to increasing trap catches.
- Proposed Treatment: Three areas totaling 36,000 acres in Rochester will be treated with SPLAT GM Organic (mating disruption) via low-flying aircraft in late June to early July 2026. The product is species-specific, non-toxic, and biodegradable.
- Public Notification: Postcards will be sent to residents in treatment areas, and a public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 2026, at the DSIC building in Rochester, with another in Stewartville on April 1. A virtual option will also be available.
- Key Statistics: The national slow-the-spread program has reduced natural spread from 15 miles per year to about 6 miles per year. Minnesota plans to treat approximately 152,000 acres in 2026. Trap-based detection is used; residents are advised not to purchase commercial traps as they interfere with survey data.
- Council Questions: Council members asked about future scenarios (if population becomes established, treatment would shift to BtK), airport coordination, and the possibility of eradication (possible for isolated populations ahead of the front). Councilmember Frederick asked about defoliation acreage in La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Supporting Transformation Update (Items 5-16)
- Presentation: Cindy Steinhauser, Ian, Jenna, and Tim presented on the $38 million infrastructure investment in downtown and adjacent areas. The project list includes streetscape, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and transportation improvements from 2026 to 2029. An RFQ for a cohesive design and innovation strategy will be issued, with a consultant recommendation to Council by November 2026.
- Coordination: City staff are meeting regularly with Mayo Clinic, DMC, and other partners to align schedules and design. Three-year and four-year inspection cycles under the Property Incentive Program were discussed.
- Overhead Wires and Undergrounding: Ryan McCullough (RPU) presented policy considerations for undergrounding overhead wires. The estimated cost for the expanded impact area is $13–15 million, with benefits including improved reliability and aesthetics, but costs far outweigh vegetation management savings. Current RPU policy requires the requester to fund conversions. Councilmember Keene stated he would not support using ratepayer dollars for undergrounding in this area; Councilmember Palmer agreed. The consensus was to maintain RPU policy and explore private funding.
- Key Outcomes: Staff will return with more detailed funding proposals and engagement strategies. The $8 million DMC allocation for the Cutski Park neighborhood will require a separate, intensive co-design process in 2027.
Housing Code Update (Items 17-31)
- Presentation: Taryn and Heather Barnes (Housing and Neighborhood Services) presented updates to Chapter 7 (Housing Code) to align with the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). Key changes include:
- Remove the offer to rent while waiting for an inspection (now 1–3 week wait).
- Late compliance fees will be assessed 90 days after license expiration, not after inspection.
- Criteria for conversion of single-family to multi-family dwellings (must comply with fire separation or revert).
- Codification of egress window measurements for existing permitted windows.
- Data: The city has 6,000+ rental licenses covering 23,000+ units. Over 2,200 inspections per month on average. The Property Incentive Program (2023) incentivizes longer inspection cycles (3–4 years) for compliant properties; new rentals default to a 2-year cycle.
- Council Feedback: Councilmembers raised concerns about consistency across inspectors, costs to landlords, and the need for clearer communication. Councilmember Palmer requested a public hearing on the ordinance. Councilmember Keene emphasized assuming good outcomes but being punitive for bad actors. Councilmember Wall suggested tracking complaints by ownership to identify pattern violations.
- Next Steps: The ordinance will go to City Council for first reading and public hearing on April 6, 2026, with an effective date of June 1, 2026.
Any Path Home Update (Items 32-40)
- Presentation: Councilmember Dory provided an update on the Any Path Home Initiative. A revised charter has been drafted and will come back to Council for adoption. The leadership council includes city, county, Mayo Clinic, and direct service agencies. Case conferencing using a by-name list is operational; as of February 2026, 297 individuals were on the list, with 30 entering and 30 exiting in January–February.
- Proposed City Role: The city will serve as communication support organization and the leadership council chair will be an elected official (Councilmember Dory currently). The county will provide operational support, including a new coordinator position (funded by county, expected by mid-May 2026).
- Council Feedback: Councilmember Keene inquired about authority – the leadership council is the ultimate decision-making body. Councilmember Palmer expressed concerns about defining housing as a right and personal responsibility; he also stressed no new city funding. Councilmember Miller asked about future funding streams (grants and private contributions).
- Key Outcomes: The revised charter will be brought to City Council for formal adoption. No vote was taken at this session.
Meeting Transcript
Rochester City Council study session, and we are in our more informal setting again, which I think uh really is conducive to a great dialogue, which we have two weeks ago. Uh, today's agenda we have four items. We have spongy moth management in Rochester, uh, and then we have uh supporting transformation update, a housing code update, and then we'll hear from our colleague, uh council member um Dory on any bath home program update. So with that, I am going to turn it over to Kimberly Bramers and John Larson from uh the Department of Agriculture. Well, thank you, uh Council members. Uh thank you so much for having us. My name is Kimberly Tilling Kramers. Um I'm with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. I'm a manager at the department, and with me is our uh spongy moth treatment coordinator, John Larson as well. And so we just wanted to come before you today to share a little bit about spongy moth. Um my hope is that we'll uh share with you a little bit about what what is spongy moth, why the Department of Agriculture manages for this pest, uh the damage that it does cause to local environments, and then what our proposed management uh strategy is to assist here within the city of Rochester. And so we'll jump into it a little bit about spongy moth. Uh, we were just talking about this before we started uh this morning or this afternoon. Spongy moth was originally called gypsy moth. So if you're familiar with the term gypsy moth or have heard that uh uh pest in the past, this is the same pest, it's just got a name changed just a couple of years ago, and is now referred to as spongy moth. It is a federally regulated plant pest. So it's one of those pests that is uh it's an invasive insect pest that's introduced into the United States. It's not a pest that we want here, it's not a uh uh established, at least in the Minnesota, it is established in the United States back in uh the east coast uh back in the 1800s, and so it's moving kind of westward, and we'll talk a little bit about that, but it's an incredibly defoliating uh impacting insect, and what it does is it's it eats leaves on over 300 species of trees and shrubs. So it's a defoliator. So it's the caterpillar stage that's the most damaging, and this is a pest that will come out, and it has and that's the invasive nature of it, is the fact that it can feed on over 300 species of trees. So it has this really wide host range, and some of the preferred species of trees in which it prefers, particularly down in southeast Minnesota, is your oak. Um, oak, aspen, birch, willow, basswood, those are some of the preferred, but again, 300 species of trees. On average, annually, this pest is defoliating just under 800,000 acres annually across the United States where it is established. And back in 2023, just a couple of years ago, the state of Wisconsin had just under 400,000 acres in their state alone, defoliated, trees defoliated from this particular pest. Uh so it is definitely a damaging pest from both uh the environmental standpoint, but it also has some impacts to human health and impacts to potential property value due to mortality or trees dying uh due to stress. But some of the human health concerns is the large cat the caterpillars um break off, they have these very long hairs, and those hairs can break off into the ear and float around in air. And folks during outbreak levels, if they have sensitivities, asthmatic conditions, very sensitive people can have some um temporary responses to those. Other folks who handle the insects can potentially have some skin irritations uh with handling the caterpillars themselves. So uh the property value, this pest is not a tree killer. You may be very familiar with Emerald Ash borer, which is currently established here in the Rochester area and all through Southeast Minnesota. That is an invasive. That one is a tree killer. That one causes direct mortality to ash trees, where this particular invasive pest actually stresses trees, where it then leaves those trees vulnerable to other insects and diseases that then will move in, and that is what actually causes mortality. Just similar to Emerald Ashmore, it is a regulated plant pest, so it's not only regulated in the state of Minnesota, this particular pest is regulated nationally. It is currently only established in one-third its geographical range across the United States. We are protecting the spread of this insect into two-thirds of United States, basically the rest of Minnesota and two-thirds of United States that does not currently have this established pest. We partner with both the U.S. Forest Service on this and uh USDA uh Animal Plant Health Inspection Service to kind of slow and manage this pest across the United States. You may ask, okay, you just mentioned this pest was introduced back in the 1800s. Why is it not currently established in the rest of the geographical range in which it can be established? And that has to do with the biology of this insect. The female moth cannot fly. She has this incredibly large abdomen that's simply full of eggs. She will lay a single egg mass, and each egg mass contain between 500 and a thousand viable little caterpillars. So it doesn't take too many egg masses, too many females to have established populations. It is the male moth that has flight, and this is the male that we've been serving for some time, and I'll get into a little bit of our survey program. And that's the pest in which we we will be managing. Spongy moth naturally only spreads about a mile to a mile and a half naturally on its own across that, and the only way this insect can naturally move is when it's in its tiny little first instart caterpillar. It'll put a silken thread into the air and it will balloon or blow westward. So it relies on the currents of the wind to actually move it to new treetops to get established.
openpublica.com